“You can’t advertise for reliable workers in case it offends the unreliable”? That sounds like a classic piece of flat-earth news. I wonder what the REAL story is.
As for the “You can’t advertise for reliable workers in case it offends the unreliable” this a classic Express/Mail PC gone mad piece :-
Quotes from The Plain English Campaign & the Campaign Against Political Correctness
then at the end of the article a quote from the DWP
“reliable applicants” had not been banned and the advert had now been posted online.
She said: “I can confirm that we took the advert from the employer and put it onto our website.
“Every advert goes onto our website and onto the Jobpoints. Reliability is important to employers, as it is for Jobcentre Plus, and we welcome ads seeking reliable applicants.”
so as usual headline and actual events have no resemblance to one another
Thanks for the commentary DTR. I thought it sounded like the usual old twaddle.
Here’s an interesting piece. Not directly concerned with Mail or Express but a confirmation of what we’ve come to expect from British newspapers. (Unfortunately.)
40,000 or more people each taking a £2 pill every day for the rest of their lives in order to prevent them from dying. That is a lot of money that could be spent on other things
Yeah as I work in JCP and read out several hundred adverts to jobseekers in a week I can rebuttal that we have indeed not banned the word reliable from any advert as it appears in nearly everyone.
And are they allowed to post a 13 year old rapist’s picture on the front of a paper?
“You can’t advertise for reliable workers in case it offends the unreliable”? That sounds like a classic piece of flat-earth news. I wonder what the REAL story is.
the drug in questions is Dronedardone, and guess what it hasn’t been banned it just not currently recommended for AF patients by NICE.
Why? well because it has seemingly been proved to be less effective in the treatment of AF than current routinely prescribed medication.
“Dronedarone appears to have improved tolerability at the expense of decreased efficacy when compared to amiodarone” (see link for source)
As for the “You can’t advertise for reliable workers in case it offends the unreliable” this a classic Express/Mail PC gone mad piece :-
Quotes from The Plain English Campaign & the Campaign Against Political Correctness
then at the end of the article a quote from the DWP
“reliable applicants” had not been banned and the advert had now been posted online.
She said: “I can confirm that we took the advert from the employer and put it onto our website.
“Every advert goes onto our website and onto the Jobpoints. Reliability is important to employers, as it is for Jobcentre Plus, and we welcome ads seeking reliable applicants.”
so as usual headline and actual events have no resemblance to one another
Thanks for the commentary DTR. I thought it sounded like the usual old twaddle.
Here’s an interesting piece. Not directly concerned with Mail or Express but a confirmation of what we’ve come to expect from British newspapers. (Unfortunately.)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201001/british-newspapers-make-things
I tthink it is most unkind accusing the Mail of publishing “Twaddle”
They just publish outright “Shit”.
Not being able to afford something doesn’t equate to “banning” it.
40,000 or more people each taking a £2 pill every day for the rest of their lives in order to prevent them from dying. That is a lot of money that could be spent on other things
@ DTR
Yeah as I work in JCP and read out several hundred adverts to jobseekers in a week I can rebuttal that we have indeed not banned the word reliable from any advert as it appears in nearly everyone.
And are they allowed to post a 13 year old rapist’s picture on the front of a paper?
Does that mean houses have been banned too since you can’t get one on the NHS?