MoD language guide

Diogenes' limp

War Hero
you are attempting to create a situation here by conspicuously avoiding acknowledge the extensive case law on protected belief vis Protected Characteristics

basically despite big money fro mthe USA the Bigoted Christian Legal Centre loses these cases again and again
No.

There is no attempt on my part to create a situation. The extract is from a document and accurately recorded.
Those drafting the document exercised choice in the wording and in so doing imposed a duty it has no reason to impose as a condition of employment. Mission creep.

Your response assumes that this must then be the subject of a case at some level -- again -- no. That exhibits institutionalised thinking that fails to consider the context of an SME, who may well lack the knowledge and experience of contracts, being advised by 'expert resources' to write their contracts in a discriminatory way. If it gets to court, or a tribunal, or even the employment solicitor's office it's way too late.

For the elimination of potential misunderstanding, SME in this context is a Small or Medium Enterprise, not a Subject Matter Expert. An SME or Micro business can be potentially destroyed by such a dispute, what is more, there are folk about whose modus operandi is to serially gain employment for the specific purposes of creating a dispute and benefiting from it before moving on to the next naive or unwary employer.

A point is that the subject of the thread is the mod language guide. When a guide becomes a legally enforced code is a matter very close to the hearts of many because of the machinations of Governments during Covid, not least the SNP/Greens in Scotland, seeking to confuse and blur the lines.

The illustration I provided shows where what is an exemplar employer's handbook setting out policies becomes or seeks to become a vehicle for an ideology compelling contradictory behaviours by virtue of contract.

For ease of reference the operable clause is repeated;

It is also the responsibility of all staff in their daily actions, decisions and behaviour to endeavour to promote these concepts, to comply with all relevant legislation and to ensure that they do not discriminate against colleagues, customers, suppliers or any other person associated with the company

now minimally re-drafted to achieve a balanced outcome; (other redrafts are available)

It is the responsibility of all staff in their daily actions, decisions and behaviour to comply with all relevant legislation to ensure that they do not discriminate against colleagues, customers, suppliers or any other person associated with the company

As the inevitable recourse to law over the next couple of decades gradually chips away at the contradictions, so the grey areas will be defined.
 

Diogenes' limp

War Hero
you are attempting to create a situation here by conspicuously avoiding acknowledge the extensive case law on protected belief vis Protected Characteristics

basically despite big money fro mthe USA the Bigoted Christian Legal Centre loses these cases again and again
Apologies, earlier I inadvertently posted a rational response to your assertion and only realised it when alerted by being awarded a 'dumb', what I had meant to say was;

Your disagreement is noted however the generalised assertion doesn’t address the point being made.

J.R. Hartley paper published in the Journal of Inspirational Common Sense, Vol 77 Chap 6.
Examining the unforecast random incidence of knotted-logic P nematodes in AI machine generated code
posits that the key resolution about which these phenomena form is 1.05803462.

This may have some bearing on the matter.
 

Gone2ratshat

War Hero
Apologies, earlier I inadvertently posted a rational response to your assertion and only realised it when alerted by being awarded a 'dumb', what I had meant to say was;

Your disagreement is noted however the generalised assertion doesn’t address the point being made.

J.R. Hartley paper published in the Journal of Inspirational Common Sense, Vol 77 Chap 6.
Examining the unforecast random incidence of knotted-logic P nematodes in AI machine generated code
posits that the key resolution about which these phenomena form is 1.05803462.

This may have some bearing on the matter.
Not on fly fishing then ?
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Apologies, earlier I inadvertently posted a rational response to your assertion and only realised it when alerted by being awarded a 'dumb', what I had meant to say was;

Your disagreement is noted however the generalised assertion doesn’t address the point being made.

J.R. Hartley paper published in the Journal of Inspirational Common Sense, Vol 77 Chap 6.
Examining the unforecast random incidence of knotted-logic P nematodes in AI machine generated code
posits that the key resolution about which these phenomena form is 1.05803462.

This may have some bearing on the matter.
You have the honour of getting a ‘dumb’ from the @enpointe troll.

I have one too, as do a few others - relax and savour it, it’s so busy smashing buttons it can barely see the screen or spell properly.
 

Diogenes' limp

War Hero
You have the honour of getting a ‘dumb’ from the @enpointe troll.

I have one too, as do a few others - relax and savour it, it’s so busy smashing buttons it can barely see the screen or spell properly.

There is a defensible reason for having this statistic to hand, but in a total of 239 transactions since 15th December 2021, 4 weeks and 3 days, the poster had awarded 70 dumb and 1 disagree to various posters*.

A generous soul who has fully adopted the practices of constructive criticism.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Your disagreement is noted however the generalised assertion doesn’t address the point being made.

J.R. Hartley paper published in the Journal of Inspirational Common Sense, Vol 77 Chap 6.
Examining the unforecast random incidence of knotted-logic P nematodes in AI machine generated code
posits that the key resolution about which these phenomena form is 1.05803462.

Unfortunately, this disagrees with Lobachevsky N I, "Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metrication of Infinitely Differentiable Riemanian Manifolds" (International Institute of Pedantic Persiflage, 214-9) who suggests the inflection point actually lies at 1.05803472 (plus or minis 47%)
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Unfortunately, this disagrees with Lobachevsky N I, "Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metrication of Infinitely Differentiable Riemanian Manifolds" (International Institute of Pedantic Persiflage, 214-9) who suggests the inflection point actually lies at 1.05803472 (plus or minis 47%)
You say that - try reading the Appendix.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Unfortunately, this disagrees with Lobachevsky N I, "Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metrication of Infinitely Differentiable Riemanian Manifolds" (International Institute of Pedantic Persiflage, 214-9) who suggests the inflection point actually lies at 1.05803472 (plus or minis 47%)
Funny - I had a friend in Dnepropetrovsk who was working on exactly that problem!
 

Diogenes' limp

War Hero
Unfortunately, this disagrees with Lobachevsky N I, "Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metrication of Infinitely Differentiable Riemanian Manifolds" (International Institute of Pedantic Persiflage, 214-9) who suggests the inflection point actually lies at 1.05803472 (plus or minis 47%)
And I think that many experts would concede the point, although Euclid himself dumped the issue after casting about with an open mind
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
Unfortunately, this disagrees with Lobachevsky N I, "Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metrication of Infinitely Differentiable Riemanian Manifolds" (International Institute of Pedantic Persiflage, 214-9) who suggests the inflection point actually lies at 1.05803472 (plus or minis 47%)
For the love of God, when will folk stop reading sloppy Google-translated versions of these key papers? In the original, Nikolaj Ivanovich quite clearly and specifically states that the mean inflection point usually lies at the number you quote, with a variance of up to 47% under some circumstances. I think you'll agree that entirely alters both the nature and the content of his conclusions.
 

Diogenes' limp

War Hero
For the love of God, when will folk stop reading sloppy Google-translated versions of these key papers? In the original, Nikolaj Ivanovich quite clearly and specifically states that the mean inflection point usually lies at the number you quote, with a variance of up to 47% under some circumstances. I think you'll agree that entirely alters both the nature and the content of his conclusions.
But his original work pre-dated the introduction of the SK-42 reference system, which on upgrade resulted in the location error you pinpoint with an inverse flattening 1/f of 298.3

This factor alone gave a false value for the dumb multiplication hypothesis resulting in an off point persistent thread drift.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
For the love of God, when will folk stop reading sloppy Google-translated versions of these key papers? In the original, Nikolaj Ivanovich quite clearly and specifically states that the mean inflection point usually lies at the number you quote, with a variance of up to 47% under some circumstances. I think you'll agree that entirely alters both the nature and the content of his conclusions.
I gave you a dumb because it was proven that he ignored parallax error. Ivanovich succumbed to XRW influence because of family connections - his mother was linked to the Romanovs, his grandson later wrote for the Daily Mail.

Although, I concede, introducing the concept of genders with a value greater than one/with values where one is a large one was a stroke of genius.
 

Chef

LE
Is this the analytical version of Mornington Crescent?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top