Ex-NHS hospital secretary, 88, who was sacked and frogmarched from the office after colleagues feared they'd 'find her dead' becomes UK's oldest person to win age discrimination case

An elderly hospital secretary has become the oldest person to win an age discrimination case at the age of 88.

Eileen Jolly, of Tilehurst, has successfully sued her former employers, the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, for unfair dismissal on grounds of age and disability and breach of contract.

She was frogmarched out of her office at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading by security staff in late 2016 and sacked four months later over concerns about her 'frailty'.

But the grandmother told her employment tribunal she had not taken a sick day in 10 years, despite suffering a heart attack at work when she had to be resuscitated by a surgeon.

The pensioner, who has a heart condition and walks with a stick, claimed she planned to work until she was at least 90.

She said she was forced to lie to friends out of embarrassment, telling them she had 'retired' as opposed to being sacked.

During her hearing, she told of how she was particularly hurt by one colleague who she quoted as saying: 'It was always a concern that you could walk in and find Eileen dead on the floor.'

The medical secretary will have to wait until October to find out how much she will receive in compensation.

Speaking from her Berkshire home today, she said: 'I have not read the judgment yet. I am seeing my solicitor either this week or next week.'

The tribunal heard that after she was escorted out of the hospital by security staff in September 2016 she was prescribed antidepressants and felt too ashamed to tell anyone what had happened, saying instead that she had 'retired.'

Her husband died two weeks before the tribunal hearing began in November without knowing what happened.

She was told to collect her things and leave and overheard a colleague saying: 'Eileen won't be coming back.'

The medical secretary, who suffers from arthritis and a heart condition, was accused of allowing patients that needed breast surgery to wait more than 52-weeks for treatment.

Mrs Jolly, who worked for the hospital trust from 1991 to her dismissal in 2017, was blamed for not uploading details of women awaiting non-urgent breast reconstruction surgery to a new database.

The error was partially blamed for 14 women having to wait more than a year for surgery, putting the hospital trust at risk of a Government fine.

But an employment judge ruled Mrs Jolly and her managers had different ideas about what her role entailed - and the trust failed to train her in how to manage patient waiting lists.

Employment judge Andrew Gumbiti-Zimuto said: 'The claimant did not understand her role the way that her managers understood her role.

'The role that the claimant understood she was performing, she was performing competently.

'There is a suspicion of the claimant being a scapegoat, the claimant was not offered training where it might be considered appropriate.

'There was evidence of the claimant's training having been inadequate, incomplete and 'on the job' training was ad hoc and not directed.'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6673691/Royal-Berkshire-NHS-Foundation-worker-oldest-person-win-age-discrimination-case-88.html

Good. Take that you ageist fuckers!

I bet this goes on a lot. Companies getting rid of older workers, denying them training and finding any excuse to let them go.

HoratioTarr wrote:Good.  Take that you ageist fuckers!

I bet this goes on a lot.   Companies getting rid of older workers, denying them training and finding any excuse to let them go.  

More than you know. What is worse is the loss of agency that comes with old age. They are abused, and then the authorities won't even listen.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:Good.  Take that you ageist fuckers!

I bet this goes on a lot.   Companies getting rid of older workers, denying them training and finding any excuse to let them go.  

More than you know.  What is worse is the loss of agency that comes with old age.  They are abused, and then the authorities won't even listen.

I think it's worse in the States than here. I have a friend who lives there and gets called some terrible ageist things by her boss.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

More than you know.  What is worse is the loss of agency that comes with old age.  They are abused, and then the authorities won't even listen.

I think it's worse in the States than here.   I have a friend who lives there and gets called some terrible ageist things by her boss.  

I would agree. America has a more laissez-faire approach to social services, when needed, that allows people to shrug and go off looking for more money.

I include that latter prong of the alternative because the US is more RW/capitalist than the UK. The UK is used to looking after it's own, while rightys over here could give a shite.

HoratioTarr wrote:Good.  Take that you ageist fuckers!

I bet this goes on a lot.   Companies getting rid of older workers, denying them training and finding any excuse to let them go.  

I dont think people of 88 years old should still be working.
In this case her health is bad, she may not take time off sick but she had a bloody heart attack in work for Gods sake....no wonder a colleague was scared they would find her dead on the floor one morning..
It's not disrespectful to judge people by their age in certain cicrumstances....it should be done when allowing IVF treatment, it should be done when renewing driving licenses to over 70's, and it should be done when allowing people to continue work after a certain age.

Also, If everyone hung onto their jobs 15 or more years after normal retirement age, how are the younger people supposed to find regular work?

As an afterthought, if the state pension was raised maybe more people could afford to retire?

You cannot sack someone because of their age or ill health, unless their ill health is severely affecting their ability to do the job. That's why companies and employers will look for another reason. They thought they'd found one, but they got the blame instead for not training her properly.

Raggamuffin wrote:You cannot sack someone because of their age or ill health, unless their ill health is severely affecting their ability to do the job. That's why companies and employers will look for another reason. They thought they'd found one, but they got the blame instead for not training her properly.

Actually companies can relase people based on ill health and it shows your ignorace of this

I saw a friend with a wasting disease lose his job, as they argued, he was not able to perform his duties

Its not called a sacking of course, but the reality is, it is.

I suggest you educate yourself on this

There are six grounds under which employers are legally able to sack employees, and the most significant from an ill health dismissal point of view is capability. If you are too unwell or physically unable to perform your job, your employer has the right to dismiss you, perhaps forcing you into early retirement through ill health.

Christopher Smith, a partner at Quality Solicitors Wilson Browne, says: "Your employer is paying money for a job that is not being done. You can be fairly dismissed for ill health."

https://www.moneywise.co.uk/health-insurance/work-family/your-rights-ill-health-dismissal

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:Good.  Take that you ageist fuckers!

I bet this goes on a lot.   Companies getting rid of older workers, denying them training and finding any excuse to let them go.  

I dont think people of 88 years old should still be working.
In this case her health is bad, she may not take time off sick but she had a bloody heart attack in work for Gods sake....no wonder a colleague was scared they would find her dead on the floor one morning..
It's not disrespectful to judge people by their age in certain cicrumstances....it should be done when allowing IVF treatment, it should be done when renewing driving licenses to over 70's, and it should be done when allowing people to continue work after a certain age.

Also, If everyone hung onto their jobs 15 or more years after normal retirement age, how are the younger people supposed to find regular work?

There's plenty of work. I disagree with all you've said because everyone is entitled to a job no matter their age. This job might have kept this woman mobile and given her much needed company and a reason to get up in the morning. What would you prefer? She be shunted to rot in a home? This is isn't just about an 88 year old. It's about anyone over 50.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You cannot sack someone because of their age or ill health, unless their ill health is severely affecting their ability to do the job. That's why companies and employers will look for another reason. They thought they'd found one, but they got the blame instead for not training her properly.

Actually companies can relase people based on ill health and it shows your ignorace of this

I saw a friend with a wasting disease lose his job, as they argued, he was not able to perform his duties

Its not called a sacking of course, but the reality is, it is.

I suggest you educate yourself on this

There are six grounds under which employers are legally able to sack employees, and the most significant from an ill health dismissal point of view is capability. If you are too unwell or physically unable to perform your job, your employer has the right to dismiss you, perhaps forcing you into early retirement through ill health.

Christopher Smith, a partner at Quality Solicitors Wilson Browne, says: "Your employer is paying money for a job that is not being done. You can be fairly dismissed for ill health."

https://www.moneywise.co.uk/health-insurance/work-family/your-rights-ill-health-dismissal

Can't you just for once reply nicely to people. Raggs isn't ignorant. You patronising arsehole.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thor wrote:


Actually companies can relase people based on ill health and it shows your ignorace of this

I saw a friend with a wasting disease lose his job, as they argued, he was not able to perform his duties

Its not called a sacking of course, but the reality is, it is.

I suggest you educate yourself on this

Can't you just for once reply nicely to people.  Raggs isn't ignorant.   You patronising arsehole.

lol, you want me to be nice by you not being nice?

How about you take a leaf out of your own reasoning dipshit?

As you and rags are never innocent here and I do not claim to be either. Again at least I am honest here, but you trying to hold some higher moral ground, is what is absurd to say the least

You and rags are the two people on this forum I never see ever admit to ever possible being wrong

I see you as two hard cases, that have been dealt a hard hand in life, and instead of learning from this. It has instead made you be the same idiocy, of what was treated out onto you by other idiots.

I have appluaded you and not once ever seen you make a nice comment about me?

Not that I am bothered, I just laugh at the girlie gang attitude. You, Rags and syl have. Frankly, I think all 3 of you are bullies and fail badly at this.

So you want some honesty from me. Stop being a hard arsed bitch, based on some men being cunts to you.

As that is how you treat most men on this forum. Its your hate that is directing your hard arse bitch attitude

It was not me, that was an actual cunt to you

When you learn some humility and get that massive chip off your shoulder Horatio. Then I am sure I will warm to you

Good luck with that

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I dont think people of 88 years old should still be working.
In this case her health is bad, she may not take time off sick but she had a bloody heart attack in work for Gods sake....no wonder a colleague was scared they would find her dead on the floor one morning..
It's not disrespectful to judge people by their age in certain cicrumstances....it should be done when allowing IVF treatment, it should be done when renewing driving licenses to over 70's, and it should be done when allowing people to continue work after a certain age.

Also, If everyone hung onto their jobs 15 or more years after normal retirement age, how are the younger people supposed to find regular work?

There's plenty of work.   I disagree with all you've said because everyone is entitled to a job no matter their age.  This job might have kept this woman mobile  and given her much needed company and a reason to get up in the morning.  What would you prefer?  She be shunted to rot in a home?   This is isn't just about an 88 year old.  It's about anyone over 50.  

There is plenty of work for people prepared to take zero hour contracts do you mean?

Why should an alternative to not working mean she should be shunted off into a home to rot?
That doesn't make sense. If she is still fit she should have a good retirement.
I actually think it's pretty selfish to expect to work as an employee when you are pushing 90, and obviously holding on to a job that could go to a younger person.
If everyone did that can you imagine the state the country would be in.

Thor wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Can't you just for once reply nicely to people.  Raggs isn't ignorant.   You patronising arsehole.

lol, you want me to be nice by you not being nice?

How about you take a leaf out of your own reasoning dipshit?

As you and rags are never innocent here and I do not claim to be either. Again at least I am honest here, but you trying to hold some higher moral ground, is what is absurd to say the least

You and rags are the two people on this forum I never see ever admit to ever possible being wrong

I see you as two hard cases, that have been dealt a hard hand in life, and instead of learning from this. It has instead made you be the same idiocy, of what was treated out onto you by other idiots.

I have appluaded you and not once ever seen you make a nice comment about me?

Not that I am bothered, I just laugh at the girlie gang attitude. You, Rags and syl have. Frankly, I think all 3 of you are bullies and fail badly at this.

So you want some honesty from me. Stop being a hard arsed bitch, based on some men being cunts to you.

As that is how you treat most men on this forum. Its your hate that is directing your hard arse bitch attitude

It was not me, that was an actual cunt to you

When you learn some humility and get that massive chip off your shoulder Horatio. Then I am sure I will warm to you

Good luck with that

You are the biggest bully on here. And when you are not bullying and trying to browbeat people you resort to sulking.
You wont see this though because you put me on ignore weeks ago when you failed to bully me into submission. Grow up

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You cannot sack someone because of their age or ill health, unless their ill health is severely affecting their ability to do the job. That's why companies and employers will look for another reason. They thought they'd found one, but they got the blame instead for not training her properly.

Actually companies can relase people based on ill health and it shows your ignorace of this

I saw a friend with a wasting disease lose his job, as they argued, he was not able to perform his duties

Its not called a sacking of course, but the reality is, it is.

I suggest you educate yourself on this

There are six grounds under which employers are legally able to sack employees, and the most significant from an ill health dismissal point of view is capability. If you are too unwell or physically unable to perform your job, your employer has the right to dismiss you, perhaps forcing you into early retirement through ill health.

Christopher Smith, a partner at Quality Solicitors Wilson Browne, says: "Your employer is paying money for a job that is not being done. You can be fairly dismissed for ill health."

https://www.moneywise.co.uk/health-insurance/work-family/your-rights-ill-health-dismissal

Did you miss the bit where I said unless it's severely affecting their ability to do their job? Get over your own ignorance and learn to read.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thor wrote:


Actually companies can relase people based on ill health and it shows your ignorace of this

I saw a friend with a wasting disease lose his job, as they argued, he was not able to perform his duties

Its not called a sacking of course, but the reality is, it is.

I suggest you educate yourself on this

Can't you just for once reply nicely to people.  Raggs isn't ignorant.   You patronising arsehole.

Thank you. Yes, he is a patronising arsehole.

Thor wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Can't you just for once reply nicely to people.  Raggs isn't ignorant.   You patronising arsehole.

lol, you want me to be nice by you not being nice?

How about you take a leaf out of your own reasoning dipshit?

As you and rags are never innocent here and I do not claim to be either. Again at least I am honest here, but you trying to hold some higher moral ground, is what is absurd to say the least

You and rags are the two people on this forum I never see ever admit to ever possible being wrong

I see you as two hard cases, that have been dealt a hard hand in life, and instead of learning from this. It has instead made you be the same idiocy, of what was treated out onto you by other idiots.

I have appluaded you and not once ever seen you make a nice comment about me?

Not that I am bothered, I just laugh at the girlie gang attitude. You, Rags and syl have. Frankly, I think all 3 of you are bullies and fail badly at this.

So you want some honesty from me. Stop being a hard arsed bitch, based on some men being cunts to you.

As that is how you treat most men on this forum. Its your hate that is directing your hard arse bitch attitude

It was not me, that was an actual cunt to you

When you learn some humility and get that massive chip off your shoulder Horatio. Then I am sure I will warm to you

Good luck with that

You vile man. You know nothing about my life. I can't speak for Horatio, but I don't say anything nice about you because there is nothing nice about you.

And the gang mentality begins lol

So you do not think I am a nice man Rags

Whoopdeedoo

Thor wrote:And the gang mentality begins lol

So you do not think I am a nice man Rags

Whoopdeedoo

You don't have any redeeming features that I can see. I used to try to like and respect you, but gave up when I realised you actually thrive on aggro. You're a bully, A protagonist. You provoke and goad and spout patronising argumentative logorrhoea one moment, then are obsequious and apologetic the next. You can't deal with the likes of me, Syl and Ragga because you'll never get the better of us and never win an argument with us; because you're a boastful, pretentious buffoon with a limited intellect and delusions of grandeur.

I should feel sorry for you, because I know you have mental health issues. But even that doesn't excuse your behaviour on here. The behaviour that's seen you banned countless times.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

There's plenty of work.   I disagree with all you've said because everyone is entitled to a job no matter their age.  This job might have kept this woman mobile  and given her much needed company and a reason to get up in the morning.  What would you prefer?  She be shunted to rot in a home?   This is isn't just about an 88 year old.  It's about anyone over 50.  

There is plenty of work for people prepared to take zero hour contracts do you mean?

Why should an alternative to not working mean she should be shunted off into a home to rot?
That doesn't make sense. If she is still fit she should have a good retirement.
I actually think it's pretty selfish to expect to work as an employee when you are pushing 90, and obviously holding on to a job that could go to a younger person.
If everyone did that can you imagine the state the country would be in.

There's loads of jobs out there, Syl. Getting them though means jumping through hoops a lot of the time. I think older people get a raw deal, and if they live alone they have as much right to work and support themselves to a reasonable level as a young person.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thor wrote:And the gang mentality begins lol

So you do not think I am a nice man Rags

Whoopdeedoo

You don't have any redeeming features that I can see.  I used to try to like and respect you, but gave up when I realised you actually thrive on aggro.   You're a bully,  A protagonist.  You provoke and goad and spout patronising argumentative logorrhoea one moment, then are obsequious and apologetic the next.   You can't deal with the likes of me, Syl and Ragga because you'll never get the better of us and never win an argument with us; because you're a boastful, pretentious buffoon with a limited intellect and delusions of grandeur.

I should feel sorry for you, because I know you have mental health issues.  But even that doesn't excuse your behaviour on here.  The behaviour that's seen you banned countless times.

I have nothing against you Horatio

You can feel what ever you like

Its not me that has the problem here

For you to cast me as having mental issues, shows you are hateful

I know you have gone through hell in the past with men who were dicks

I actually only want you to get past this and be happy and I know you now have

I seriously have no ill will against you or Syl and ever will

That is what you fail to grasp

Syl and you have made countless dumb lying points against me and I put her to the test

Neither of you have humility

I do

When I am a cunt, I will always say so, because i am human

You though look to make exucses and cast people with mental illness

What does that say about you insecurities and the fact that its you being a bully?

Thor wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You don't have any redeeming features that I can see.  I used to try to like and respect you, but gave up when I realised you actually thrive on aggro.   You're a bully,  A protagonist.  You provoke and goad and spout patronising argumentative logorrhoea one moment, then are obsequious and apologetic the next.   You can't deal with the likes of me, Syl and Ragga because you'll never get the better of us and never win an argument with us; because you're a boastful, pretentious buffoon with a limited intellect and delusions of grandeur.

I should feel sorry for you, because I know you have mental health issues.  But even that doesn't excuse your behaviour on here.  The behaviour that's seen you banned countless times.

I have nothing against you Horatio

You can feel what ever you like

Its not me that has the problem here

For you to cast me as having mental issues, shows you are hateful

I know you have gone through hell in the past with men who were dicks

I actually only want you to get past this and be happy and I know you now have

I seriously have no ill will against you or Syl and ever will

That is what you fail to grasp

Syl and you have made countless dumb lying points against me and I put her to the test

Neither of you have humility

I do

When I am a cunt, I will always say so, because i am human

You though look to make exucses and cast people with mental illness

What does that say about you insecurities and the fact that its you being a bully?

Why don't you just stop being one? It's nearly all the time anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


I have nothing against you Horatio

You can feel what ever you like

Its not me that has the problem here

For you to cast me as having mental issues, shows you are hateful

I know you have gone through hell in the past with men who were dicks

I actually only want you to get past this and be happy and I know you now have

I seriously have no ill will against you or Syl and ever will

That is what you fail to grasp

Syl and you have made countless dumb lying points against me and I put her to the test

Neither of you have humility

I do

When I am a cunt, I will always say so, because i am human

You though look to make exucses and cast people with mental illness

What does that say about you insecurities and the fact that its you being a bully?

Why don't you just stop being one? It's nearly all the time anyway.

Well here is a test for you Rags

If I have offended you

I am sorry

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why don't you just stop being one? It's nearly all the time anyway.

Well here is a test for you Rags

If I have offended you

I am sorry

There you go again - turning it round onto me. Just decide to be less arrogant, less vulgar, less bossy, less abusive, less know-it-all, and maybe you won't get such negative remarks.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Well here is a test for you Rags

If I have offended you

I am sorry

There you go again - turning it round onto me. Just decide to be less arrogant, less vulgar, less bossy, less abusive, less know-it-all, and maybe you won't get such negative remarks.

I apologised and yet you still hold no responsibility for any thing you say or do

I am never going to change who I am

Sorry that bothers you

Maybe you should look at your controlling issues here Rags

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There you go again - turning it round onto me. Just decide to be less arrogant, less vulgar, less bossy, less abusive, less know-it-all, and maybe you won't get such negative remarks.

I apologised and yet you still hold no responsibility for any thing you say or do

I am never going to change who I am

Sorry that bothers you

Maybe you should look at your controlling issues here Rags

So you only apologise when you expect an apology in return. It doesn't work that way. I know your apologies are not genuine.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


I apologised and yet you still hold no responsibility for any thing you say or do

I am never going to change who I am

Sorry that bothers you

Maybe you should look at your controlling issues here Rags

So you only apologise when you expect an apology in return. It doesn't work that way. I know your apologies are not genuine.

I have apologised

I am sorry rags

Does this only work one way?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you only apologise when you expect an apology in return. It doesn't work that way. I know your apologies are not genuine.

I have apologised

I am sorry rags

Does this only work one way?

Yes, because you're the one being obnoxious. Stop being such a fake.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

I have apologised

I am sorry rags

Does this only work one way?

Yes, because you're the one being obnoxious. Stop being such a fake.

Define fake?

Do you ever question yourself?

I alredy apologised

What else would you like me to do?

Kiss my ring piece?

Sorry cannot bend that far

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

There is plenty of work for people prepared to take zero hour contracts do you mean?

Why should an alternative to not working mean she should be shunted off into a home to rot?
That doesn't make sense. If she is still fit she should have a good retirement.
I actually think it's pretty selfish to expect to work as an employee when you are pushing 90, and obviously holding on to a job that could go to a younger person.
If everyone did that can you imagine the state the country would be in.

There's loads of jobs out there, Syl.  Getting them though means jumping through hoops a lot of the time.     I think older people get a raw deal, and if they live alone they have as much right to work and support themselves to a reasonable level as a young person.

There are loads of jobs I agree, but like i said, zero hour contract or limited hour contract are often the only ones on offer . My grandson was waiting a year to be called up to start navy training, he went after lots of full time jobs to fill the gap, he wasn't offered one with regular hours.
I do think older people get a raw deal, the way they are often treated by society for a start, there is little respect, and many struggle to live on a state pension.
Maybe if that was raised so none would be living in poverty would help, but I still think age limits should be applied when working full time as an employee.

Thor wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

You don't have any redeeming features that I can see.  I used to try to like and respect you, but gave up when I realised you actually thrive on aggro.   You're a bully,  A protagonist.  You provoke and goad and spout patronising argumentative logorrhoea one moment, then are obsequious and apologetic the next.   You can't deal with the likes of me, Syl and Ragga because you'll never get the better of us and never win an argument with us; because you're a boastful, pretentious buffoon with a limited intellect and delusions of grandeur.

I should feel sorry for you, because I know you have mental health issues.  But even that doesn't excuse your behaviour on here.  The behaviour that's seen you banned countless times.

I have nothing against you Horatio

You can feel what ever you like

Its not me that has the problem here

For you to cast me as having mental issues, shows you are hateful

But its hunky dory for you to insinuate that all the men in my life have been cunts, and that I'm bitter against men and it's affected me psychologically? Which is utter rubbish. I'm happily married and friends with most of exes, bar two. And you call people on here ignorant, trash their opinions as though you know better, and perpetually try to rile people up.

You're a complete moron. Don't dish it out, shit for brains, if you can't take it.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thor wrote:


I have nothing against you Horatio

You can feel what ever you like

Its not me that has the problem here

For you to cast me as having mental issues, shows you are hateful

But its hunky dory for you to insinuate that all the men in my life have been cunts, and that I'm bitter against men and it's affected me psychologically?  Which is utter rubbish.  I'm happily married and friends with most of exes, bar two.  And you call people on here ignorant, trash their opinions as though you know better, and perpetually try to rile people up.

You're a complete moron.   Don't dish it out, shit for brains, if you can't take it.    

You think that is comparable?

Seriously?

When you made the view plenty of times on me with mental health, before I made any such view on you, where you admit you have been treated poorly by men?

I seriously do not mind what you think of me.

I do not make excuses, when I am a dick, I am simple a dick and in the wrong. Hence why I have humility and admit to being wrong

I never have and happy that you dfsh it out, as I can take it. What I am showing is you have no moral ground and you are a complete bully

You simple cannot take things and lash out yourself

So if you think I am a moron, I will wear that badge with pride

Can you wear an insecure badge with pride, that you have simple carried all your life?

I happily trtash poor opinions, as poor opinions, like religious ones, have allowed people to follow bad ideas. Maybe if you had studied history you would know this and if you cannot take people trashing your ideas. Then you would understand actually you are the problem with this. It means its you that cannot take criticism. Its no doubt why you have had some bad relationships. In that you cannot ever see in how you could be possible wrong.

When you recognise the possibility you might at times be wrong, then I am sure we will get on famously, but I really do not hold out much hope for you. The reality is you are too stuborn and controlling. You clearly wear the trousers in your relationship and have no idea what an equal relationship is or means. If you did, you would like I undestand. That we can all be idiots at times, but you poorly see yourself as perfect.

That is where you go wrong

So happy for you to think of me anyway that you do, but the fact is you do weaponise mental health as a means to get at people, never understanding mental health itself

That is why you are pathetic and childish

I can apologise and yet I never see you admit to ever being wrong or apologise

I do not even hold a grudge against the 3 of you, I am simple standing up to your poor ill conceived poor ethical standings

When you and the other two dimwits learn some humility

Then you will end up being better people and why I have taken a stand with Syl, because she has zero humility. When she blatantly lied

Until then, you will never have any moral standing. Where the 3 of you seem to hold some warped view, that to admit being wrong or to pologise shows weakness. Where in fact such a stance is a weakness itself to not admit to ever thinking you could be wrong or think you should never apologise

It takes courage to be humble andf admit to be wrong at times, so why are you incapable of doing this?

On that I wish you good luck

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

There's loads of jobs out there, Syl.  Getting them though means jumping through hoops a lot of the time.     I think older people get a raw deal, and if they live alone they have as much right to work and support themselves to a reasonable level as a young person.

There are loads of jobs I agree, but like i said, zero hour contract or limited hour contract are often the only ones on offer . My grandson was waiting a year to be called up to start navy training, he went after lots of full time jobs to fill the gap, he wasn't offered one  with regular hours.
I do think older people get a raw deal, the way they are often treated by society for a start, there is little respect, and many struggle to live on a state pension.
Maybe if that was raised so none would be living in poverty would help, but I still think age limits should be applied when working full time as an employee.

Weren't you against age discrimination in another thread?

Most people aren't as altruistic as you think. Your suggestion is that old people should give up their jobs so that younger people can have them, but why should they? She would lose a lot of earnings, and she might otherwise only have her state pension to live on. She might then have to get housing benefit or something. Would you say that a woman with a rich husband should give up her job so that a single person can have it?

Thor wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

But its hunky dory for you to insinuate that all the men in my life have been cunts, and that I'm bitter against men and it's affected me psychologically?  Which is utter rubbish.  I'm happily married and friends with most of exes, bar two.  And you call people on here ignorant, trash their opinions as though you know better, and perpetually try to rile people up.

You're a complete moron.   Don't dish it out, shit for brains, if you can't take it.    

You think that is comparable?

Seriously?

When you made the view plenty of times on me with mental health, before I made any such view on you, where you admit you have been treated poorly by men?

I seriously do not mind what you think of me.

I do not make excuses, when I am a dick, I am simple a dick and in the wrong. Hence why I have humility and admit to being wrong

I never have and happy that you dfsh it out, as I can take it. What I am showing is you have no moral ground and you are a complete bully

You simple cannot take things and lash out yourself

So if you think I am a moron, I will wear that badge with pride

Can you wear an insecure badge with pride, that you have simple carried all your life?

I happily trtash poor opinions, as poor opinions, like religious ones, have allowed people to follow bad ideas. Maybe if you had studied history you would know this and if you cannot take people trashing your ideas. Then you would understand actually you are the problem with this. It means its you that cannot take criticism. Its no doubt why you have had some bad relationships. In that you cannot ever see in how you could be possible wrong.

When you recognise the possibility you might at times be wrong, then I am sure we will get on famously, but I really do not hold out much hope for you. The reality is you are too stuborn and controlling. You clearly wear the trousers in your relationship and have no idea what an equal relationship is or means. If you did, you would like I undestand. That we can all be idiots at times, but you poorly see yourself as perfect.

That is where you go wrong

So happy for you to think of me anyway that you do, but the fact is you do weaponise mental health as a means to get at people, never understanding mental health itself

That is why you are pathetic and childish

I can apologise and yet I never see you admit to ever being wrong or apologise

I do not even hold a grudge against the 3 of you, I am simple standing up to your poor ill conceived poor ethical standings

When you and the other two dimwits learn some humility

Then you will end up being better people and why I have taken a stand with Syl, because she has zero humility. When she blatantly lied

Until then, you will never have any moral standing. Where the 3 of you seem to hold some warped view, that to admit being wrong or to pologise shows weakness. Where in fact such a stance is a weakness itself to not admit to ever thinking you could be wrong or think you should never apologise

It takes courage to be humble andf admit to be wrong at times, so why are you incapable of doing this?

On that I wish you good luck

Why should you hold a grudge against any of us? We've done nothing wrong. You were only saying the other day that you were putting Syl on permanent ignore, which to my mind is holding a grudge.

You've also insulted us again in your post so, as I said, your apologies mean nothing. You don't just trash ideas or beliefs, you trash the person who has those ideas or beliefs. You will never convince me that you're a decent person, so don't even try.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


You think that is comparable?

Seriously?

When you made the view plenty of times on me with mental health, before I made any such view on you, where you admit you have been treated poorly by men?

I seriously do not mind what you think of me.

I do not make excuses, when I am a dick, I am simple a dick and in the wrong. Hence why I have humility and admit to being wrong

I never have and happy that you dfsh it out, as I can take it. What I am showing is you have no moral ground and you are a complete bully

You simple cannot take things and lash out yourself

So if you think I am a moron, I will wear that badge with pride

Can you wear an insecure badge with pride, that you have simple carried all your life?

I happily trtash poor opinions, as poor opinions, like religious ones, have allowed people to follow bad ideas. Maybe if you had studied history you would know this and if you cannot take people trashing your ideas. Then you would understand actually you are the problem with this. It means its you that cannot take criticism. Its no doubt why you have had some bad relationships. In that you cannot ever see in how you could be possible wrong.

When you recognise the possibility you might at times be wrong, then I am sure we will get on famously, but I really do not hold out much hope for you. The reality is you are too stuborn and controlling. You clearly wear the trousers in your relationship and have no idea what an equal relationship is or means. If you did, you would like I undestand. That we can all be idiots at times, but you poorly see yourself as perfect.

That is where you go wrong

So happy for you to think of me anyway that you do, but the fact is you do weaponise mental health as a means to get at people, never understanding mental health itself

That is why you are pathetic and childish

I can apologise and yet I never see you admit to ever being wrong or apologise

I do not even hold a grudge against the 3 of you, I am simple standing up to your poor ill conceived poor ethical standings

When you and the other two dimwits learn some humility

Then you will end up being better people and why I have taken a stand with Syl, because she has zero humility. When she blatantly lied

Until then, you will never have any moral standing. Where the 3 of you seem to hold some warped view, that to admit being wrong or to pologise shows weakness. Where in fact such a stance is a weakness itself to not admit to ever thinking you could be wrong or think you should never apologise

It takes courage to be humble andf admit to be wrong at times, so why are you incapable of doing this?

On that I wish you good luck

Why should you hold a grudge against any of us? We've done nothing wrong. You were only saying the other day that you were putting Syl on permanent ignore, which to my mind is holding a grudge.

You've also insulted us again in your post so, as I said, your apologies mean nothing. You don't just trash ideas or beliefs, you trash the person who has those ideas or beliefs. You will never convince me that you're a decent person, so don't even try.

I dont hold a grudge

The point with Syl is simple. She has to apologise for lying

I have nothing personally against her or you or Horatio, but I will take to task people, who in my book, have a gang mentality against others.

You trash people all the time, so taker a leaf out of her own book, because all 3 of you do so and you never condemn each other when you do. In fact you look to excuse it. I dont with myself and hence at least I can admit to being wrong and apologise

The 3 of you never have

Hence nobody is innocent

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why should you hold a grudge against any of us? We've done nothing wrong. You were only saying the other day that you were putting Syl on permanent ignore, which to my mind is holding a grudge.

You've also insulted us again in your post so, as I said, your apologies mean nothing. You don't just trash ideas or beliefs, you trash the person who has those ideas or beliefs. You will never convince me that you're a decent person, so don't even try.

I dont hold a grudge

The point with Syl is simple. She has to apologise for lying

I have nothing personally against her or you or Horatio, but I will take to task people, who in my book, have a gang mentality against others.

You trash people all the time, so taker a leaf out of her own book,  because all 3 of you do so and you never condemn each other when you do. In fact you look to excuse it. I dont with myself and hence at least I can admit to being wrong and apologise

The 3 of you never have

Hence nobody is innocent

So you are holding a grudge against Syl. After all the things you said about her you're the one who should be apologising. What did she lie about anyway?

You take people to task for merely having a different opinion. Look at the way you've been speaking to Les in another thread - it's completely unnecessary.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

I dont hold a grudge

The point with Syl is simple. She has to apologise for lying

I have nothing personally against her or you or Horatio, but I will take to task people, who in my book, have a gang mentality against others.

You trash people all the time, so taker a leaf out of her own book,  because all 3 of you do so and you never condemn each other when you do. In fact you look to excuse it. I dont with myself and hence at least I can admit to being wrong and apologise

The 3 of you never have

Hence nobody is innocent

So you are holding a grudge against Syl. After all the things you said about her you're the one who should be apologising. What did she lie about anyway?

You take people to task for merely having a different opinion. Look at the way you've been speaking to Les in another thread - it's completely unnecessary.

Cathy newman alert

I am proving a point and you are proving for me, without relaising you are

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you are holding a grudge against Syl. After all the things you said about her you're the one who should be apologising. What did she lie about anyway?

You take people to task for merely having a different opinion. Look at the way you've been speaking to Les in another thread - it's completely unnecessary.

Cathy newman alert

I am proving a point and you are proving for me, without relaising you are

The only think you're proving is that you do hold a grudge, and that you can't see when you're in the wrong - which is most of the time.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

There are loads of jobs I agree, but like i said, zero hour contract or limited hour contract are often the only ones on offer . My grandson was waiting a year to be called up to start navy training, he went after lots of full time jobs to fill the gap, he wasn't offered one  with regular hours.
I do think older people get a raw deal, the way they are often treated by society for a start, there is little respect, and many struggle to live on a state pension.
Maybe if that was raised so none would be living in poverty would help, but I still think age limits should be applied when working full time as an employee.

Weren't you against age discrimination in another thread?

Most people aren't as altruistic as you think. Your suggestion is that old people should give up their jobs so that younger people can have them, but why should they? She would lose a lot of earnings, and she might otherwise only have her state pension to live on. She might then have to get housing benefit or something. Would you say that a woman with a rich husband should give up her job so that a single person can have it?

Depends which thread you are talking about.
I have said on here, and I do believe, that in certain situations  age should be a factor in determining what that person should legally be entitled to do.
Driving was one of the things that should be taken into consideration....and I do see the Duke of Edinborough has given up his licence now after almost killing three people.
IVF is another thing that imo should stop at a certain age.

I know no one wants to admit they have reached an age where their choices are limited, but for the good of society sometimes they have to.
As for a woman with a rich husband giving up her job ...No, that's sexist.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Weren't you against age discrimination in another thread?

Most people aren't as altruistic as you think. Your suggestion is that old people should give up their jobs so that younger people can have them, but why should they? She would lose a lot of earnings, and she might otherwise only have her state pension to live on. She might then have to get housing benefit or something. Would you say that a woman with a rich husband should give up her job so that a single person can have it?

Depends which thread you are talking about.
I have said on here, and I do believe, that in certain situations  age should be a factor in determining what that person should legally be entitled to do.
Driving was one of the things that should be taken into consideration....and I do see the Duke of Edinborough has given up his licence now after almost killing three people.
IVF is another thing that imo should stop at a certain age.

I know no one wants to admit they have reached an age where their choices are limited, but for the good of society sometimes they have to.
As for a woman with a rich husband giving up her job ...No, that's sexist.

So why do you think that an 88-year old woman should give up her job just because of her age then?

I don't suppose the DofE has been charged with dangerous or careless driving has he?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

I dont hold a grudge

The point with Syl is simple. She has to apologise for lying

I have nothing personally against her or you or Horatio, but I will take to task people, who in my book, have a gang mentality against others.

You trash people all the time, so taker a leaf out of her own book,  because all 3 of you do so and you never condemn each other when you do. In fact you look to excuse it. I dont with myself and hence at least I can admit to being wrong and apologise

The 3 of you never have

Hence nobody is innocent

So you are holding a grudge against Syl. After all the things you said about her you're the one who should be apologising. What did she lie about anyway?

You take people to task for merely having a different opinion. Look at the way you've been speaking to Les in another thread - it's completely unnecessary.

I haven't lied about anything, but no doubt if he says it often enough (about 10 times in the last day or so) he hopes someone will believe his ramblings. 

HT said the other day she had tried her best to be respectful to him on here, but she is giving up trying because it's pointless....well the same with me.
He is vile one minute servile and apologetic the next, posting songs and thoughtful little remarks to the person he was obnoxious to yesterday.....that isn't having humility, it's bloody schizophrenia 

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Depends which thread you are talking about.
I have said on here, and I do believe, that in certain situations  age should be a factor in determining what that person should legally be entitled to do.
Driving was one of the things that should be taken into consideration....and I do see the Duke of Edinborough has given up his licence now after almost killing three people.
IVF is another thing that imo should stop at a certain age.

I know no one wants to admit they have reached an age where their choices are limited, but for the good of society sometimes they have to.
As for a woman with a rich husband giving up her job ...No, that's sexist.

So why do you think that an 88-year old woman should give up her job just because of her age then?

I don't suppose the DofE has been charged with dangerous or careless driving has he?

The official line is the CPS are looking into the case. I suspect now he has given up his licence it will be dropped.
I would bet he would never have been charged in any case.

I think it's selfish to hold onto a job that a younger person could be trained to fill when you reach a certain age.
If everyone did that what chance would the younger generation have to build a home and family?

And i am proven right again

The gang mentality again is implimented

Syl claimed i said that I believe someone who accepts a dinner being paid for by a man, is a prostitute

I never made any such claim

I said people who expect someone to pay, are acting like a Prostitute

The thread is all there for people to see and when presnted with the post she made. She still denied claiming what she said

Hence some people lack humility it seems and why they will remain on ignore until they admit they lied

And to prove I am telling the truth

Syl wrote:

It's a discussion not an episode of Question time.
I have given my view, you have given yours, you obviously regard any woman who accepts a dinner out as a potential prostitute, I dont.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t25927p50-student-outrages-his-date-by-refusing-to-pay-for-her-100-meal-while-his-cost-six-times-less-at-16-but-do-you-think-he-was-right-not-to-get-out-his-wallet

I asked for her to show in any comment where I believed this and she laughed

I rest my case

Hence why she needs to learn a valued life lesson

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So why do you think that an 88-year old woman should give up her job just because of her age then?

I don't suppose the DofE has been charged with dangerous or careless driving has he?

The official line is the CPS are looking into the case. I suspect now he has given up his licence it will be dropped.
I would bet he would never have been charged in any case.

I think it's selfish to hold onto a job that a younger person could be trained to fill when you reach a certain age.
If everyone did that what chance would the younger generation have to build a home and family?

Then in the same way, the person with a rich spouse could give up his/her job so that someone who needs the money can have it, right?

What if the old lady needs the money? Why is it selfish of her to earn her own money to pay for what she needs? It's not her fault that there are also young people looking for jobs, or who want homes and families (some of them anyway).

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
The official line is the CPS are looking into the case. I suspect now he has given up his licence it will be dropped.
I would bet he would never have been charged in any case.

I think it's selfish to hold onto a job that a younger person could be trained to fill when you reach a certain age.
If everyone did that what chance would the younger generation have to build a home and family?

Then in the same way, the person with a rich spouse could give up his/her job so that someone who needs the money can have it, right?

What if the old lady needs the money? Why is it selfish of her to earn her own money to pay for what she needs? It's not her fault that there are also young people looking for jobs, or who want homes and families (some of them anyway).

I have already said the state pension should rise in keeping with todays cost of living.
I think services for older people who need help should be increased, I think it's pretty disgusting the way the old and vulnerable are treated in this country...and if they are working till they are pushing 90 because they need the money, that sort of proves it..


When the rich persons spouse reaches a certain age I believe she/he too should give up their job if they are employed.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Then in the same way, the person with a rich spouse could give up his/her job so that someone who needs the money can have it, right?

What if the old lady needs the money? Why is it selfish of her to earn her own money to pay for what she needs? It's not her fault that there are also young people looking for jobs, or who want homes and families (some of them anyway).

I have already said the state pension should rise in keeping with todays cost of living.
I think services for older people who need help should be increased, I think it's pretty disgusting the way the old and vulnerable are treated in this country...and if they are working till they are pushing 90 because they need the money, that sort of proves it..


When the rich persons spouse reaches a certain age I believe she/he too should give up their job if they are employed.

Rise by how much? It would need to be more than double in order to match what someone can earn. Besides, that's not happening at the moment, so she might need the money. There's no reason for her to give up her job and claim benefits on top of a State pension.

It might not be the money, she might enjoy her job. I really don't see where you're coming from this time. Age isn't a bar to working, and I see no reason why someone should give up their job so that someone younger can have it. Let the younger person go and find their own job.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
I have already said the state pension should rise in keeping with todays cost of living.
I think services for older people who need help should be increased, I think it's pretty disgusting the way the old and vulnerable are treated in this country...and if they are working till they are pushing 90 because they need the money, that sort of proves it..


When the rich persons spouse reaches a certain age I believe she/he too should give up their job if they are employed.

Rise by how much? It would need to be more than double in order to match what someone can earn. Besides, that's not happening at the moment, so she might need the money. There's no reason for her to give up her job and claim benefits on top of a State pension.

It might not be the money, she might enjoy her job. I really don't see where you're coming from this time. Age isn't a bar to working, and I see no reason why someone should give up their job so that someone younger can have it. Let the younger person go and find their own job.

I dont think we are going to agree on this, we obviously see things differently.

But just imagine if it was the norm for an employee to stay in their jobs till they are almost 90 years old. It's OK for you to say let the younger person go and find their own job, but how can they when the older person is clinging onto it till they die? Its the way of the workforce, one out one in to fill the vacancy.
If she doesn't need the money and is working to keep her life interesting, she should take up hobbies, or work as a volunteer or something so she is still mixing with people.
I just think it's selfish to carry on in the workplace when you have long past retirement age, which is getting older in any case.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Rise by how much? It would need to be more than double in order to match what someone can earn. Besides, that's not happening at the moment, so she might need the money. There's no reason for her to give up her job and claim benefits on top of a State pension.

It might not be the money, she might enjoy her job. I really don't see where you're coming from this time. Age isn't a bar to working, and I see no reason why someone should give up their job so that someone younger can have it. Let the younger person go and find their own job.

I dont think we are going to agree on this, we obviously see things differently.

But just imagine if it was the norm for an employee to stay in their jobs till they are almost 90 years old. It's OK for you to say let the younger person go and find their own job, but how can they when the older person is clinging onto it till they die? Its the way of the workforce, one out one in to fill the vacancy.
If she doesn't need the money and is working to keep her life interesting, she should take up hobbies, or work as a volunteer or something so she is still mixing with people.
I just think it's selfish to carry on in the workplace when you have long past retirement age, which is getting older in any case.

She might not want "hobbies" or to do anything else. She might be one of those rare people who really enjoys their own particular job.

You now say "if she doesn't need the money", and yet you didn't think that a person who has a rich spouse should give up their job - unless they're old of course. It seems to me that you're very much in favour of age discrimination in the workplace. This lady is of as much value as a young person, and I really don't see why she should sacrifice her own job for some person she doesn't even know just because they're younger than her.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I dont think we are going to agree on this, we obviously see things differently.

But just imagine if it was the norm for an employee to stay in their jobs till they are almost 90 years old. It's OK for you to say let the younger person go and find their own job, but how can they when the older person is clinging onto it till they die? Its the way of the workforce, one out one in to fill the vacancy.
If she doesn't need the money and is working to keep her life interesting, she should take up hobbies, or work as a volunteer or something so she is still mixing with people.
I just think it's selfish to carry on in the workplace when you have long past retirement age, which is getting older in any case.

She might not want "hobbies" or to do anything else. She might be one of those rare people who really enjoys their own particular job.

You now say "if she doesn't need the money", and yet you didn't think that a person who has a rich spouse should give up their job - unless they're old of course. It seems to me that you're very much in favour of age discrimination in the workplace. This lady is of as much value as a young person, and I really don't see why she should sacrifice her own job for some person she doesn't even know just because they're younger than her.

That sounds a bit like 'I'm all right Jack sod you'. Society works best if people consider one another.
If a person has worked since they were 15, which this woman possibly did, she has worked full time all her life, surely it's time to free the job up for someone else....who probably needs it more than she does.

No I dont think a person with a rich spouse is the same thing at all, the rich spouse is probably employing other people, plus paying huge taxes, if his partner wants to work also I dont see how that is connected to a person 20 odd years past retirement filling up a vacancy.

You can call it age discrimination if you like, do you also feel the same about people driving well into their 90's and over....or women being denied IVF in their 60's and 70's?