"‘Get the bacon sarnies out’ remark cost Heywood IT contractor dream job "

Hicks said:
I'm a bit thick, explain the irony in the username being apt?? She is female?? :confused:
Click to expand...

Madamoiselle (Mademoiselle) is french for "young girl".

I am implying the young girl is young, naive and has never heard of Bill Hicks.

I'm backing you up bro :D
 
Hicks said:
We all know you are young, but a word of advice. I'f you're going to try and quote things from grown up websites that you read you should at least try and change the language back to your oh so beloved 'Britishness' that you're frankly obsessed that people have to obey in every way.

"Collective Muslim diaper"???

Oh dear.
Click to expand...

Muslim nappy then, whatever...
 
dowie said:
Erm no... there is no need to apologise because someone *chose* to be offended by something which isn't actually offensive... Yes telling a recruiter to 'sod off' is dumb though. There isn't necessary anything ignorant about it - if he didn't know the woman was a Muslim. They were both stupid - her overreaction to a remark about food and his overreaction to the 'PC gone mad' phone call.
Click to expand...

I didn't say there was a need to apologise, merely that it was one option. Nor was I saying that his statement was said in ignorance as I don't have the full context, I'm saying that some people here seem to be perversely quite proud of their ignorance. In previous posts I'd suggested that simply acknowledging offence was caused, however unintentionally, and stating an aim not to repeat the faux pas would have probably sorted it.

dowie said:
Could have presumably gone something like if the parties involved were less sensitive.

Contractor: 'I'll get the Bacon Sarnies in'
Recruiter: 'erm not for me thanks, I'm muslim'
Contractor: 'Ah fair enough, we'll go for a coffee instead... thanks again, see you tomorrow'
Click to expand...

It could have done but when it didn't pan out that way telling someone who has influence over your employment to sod off doesn't constitute a good reaction - it would have been fairly easy to stop it escalating at quite a few points in the story as given but that wasn't done.
 
CaNsA said:
Madamoiselle (Mademoiselle) is french for "young girl".

I am implying the young girl is young, naive and has never heard of Bill Hicks.

I'm backing you up bro :D
Click to expand...

Oh I see :D

I did get the impression that the French lady was referring to Poobrain though ;)
 
Meridian said:
1) The candidate made the bacon joke without thinking. Or, I suspect, caring.
Click to expand...

So what your saying then is that anyone who looks a bit brown is probably a muslim and people shouldn't mention bacon around them? How was the candidate to know the woman was a muslim without a massive generalisation on his part?
 
semi-pro waster said:
I didn't say there was a need to apologise, merely that it was one option. Nor was I saying that his statement was said in ignorance as I don't have the full context, I'm saying that some people here seem to be perversely quite proud of their ignorance. In previous posts I'd suggested that simply acknowledging offence was caused, however unintentionally, and stating an aim not to repeat the faux pas would have probably sorted it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he acknowledged the offence though when he got called up and told about it. Then said sod off to what ever followed and rightly so. It's all well and good stating how it could have been sorted but ultimately, there was nothing to sort out...absolutely nothing!
 
semi-pro waster said:
If you've caused offence, however unwittingly, there are a few options. One is to acknowledge that you've offended someone unintentionally and aim not to do it again, one might be to apologise and also not to do it again, one is to acknowledge no fault and tell the recruiter to "sod off", yet another (which some people seem to be advocating) is to revel in your ignorance and not accept that you might have offended someone with a comment and lack of knowledge around their beliefs.
Click to expand...

What about someone who (according to the DM article) you've spoken to SINCE the supposedly offensive comment, who has made no indication they were offended either initially or during the latter conversation but then seemingly either runs off to tell a superior or as I suspect is more likely, casually mentions it in the presence of a superior who then goes off on one because they've not got enough work to do.

Frankly to me this stinks of middle management getting uppity about a complete non-issue that didn't even actually offend the person who the comment was made to all in the name of political correctness.

I wouldn't have bent over to such nonsense either frankly and I think it's a shame that it seems so many people would.
 
Uther said:
Well it cost him 30k.Great if you can afford it,principals or not.
Click to expand...

Its not cost him 30k - it potentially cost him a short period of time having to land a different contract instead (which may pay higher or lower than this one)... Though as he's also likely been paid by the daily mail for his story he might well end up financially better off now.
 
bigjohnsonrichard said:
Just going by what Reed themselves said.
Click to expand...

Then the person who gave the quote either (a) doesn't understand what they are talking about or (more likely) (b) was engaged in damage limitation and felt that referring to the contractor as "their client" might help in that.

The NHS are the client because they are the ones who pay Reed. Reed offer the NHS a selection of products which the NHS choose from.

"if you're not paying for something, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold"
 
He can still be their client too... if they want to frame it that way. He's making use of their services.

Plenty of health and/or social professionals also refer to the members of the public they deal with as their 'clients' - it doesn't necessarily infer that money is passed directly from the client to the service provider.
 
One of the big Bacon Corporations is missing out on huge free publicity not offering this guy a similar contract. Employ the guy for £30k and get £100,000's worth of free publicity :cool:
 
spudbynight said:
Then the person who gave the quote either (a) doesn't understand what they are talking about or (more likely) (b) was engaged in damage limitation and felt that referring to the contractor as "their client" might help in that.

The NHS are the client because they are the ones who pay Reed. Reed offer the NHS a selection of products which the NHS choose from.

"if you're not paying for something, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold"
Click to expand...

Just because you're not handing over money, doesn't mean you aren't paying. He handed over exclusivity rights; he is both the client and the product.
 
The man should sue reed for racism and discrimination. His bacon eating beliefs were not respected.

Come on we all know if it was the other way around, some halaal eating muslim would win a discrimination case. I am sure they already have...
 
It's truly a totally bizarre story the more I think about it, there is nothing wrong with saying I'll buy the bacon butties he was obviously overjoyed at getting so far on the application process. To then take offence at that (whether that's the Muslim in question or some wannabe do gooder) need to be taken to task over this.

I do hope David Cameron wades into this. Just like he feels the need to when footballers bite people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom