Tags **(NO CAPS - Use " " for multiple word tags)**:
Where I went to law school, to make an assertion like "totally illegal report it to the police" without a shred of legal justification as to why such an advert is "illegal" would result in a low or failing grade. See Cardiff Women's Aid v Hartup (1994) IRLR 390 for actual legal guidance. Please do not waste the time of the police as it is stretched as thin as can be already.
Astonishing: the hue and cry about this nothing burger and ostensible bi-weekly acts of terrorism get no mention at all.
I don't think you understand the meaning of " ostensible ".
No, actually I do understand the meaning. I was specifically referring to the ostensible act of terrorism near Finsbury Park a couple of weeks ago. You are correct to the extent you were implying that all of the others were not ostensible.
Except parking and no right turns. But the penalties for these bring in money.
Don't these Turkish places tend to have a preponderance of male waiters? So the effect of this may be to create a bit of diversity?
Such signs can often be seen in the local restaurants, cafes and shops. But usually just in Turkish which effectively means only Turkish speakers can understand and apply.
This break equal opps rules/legislation for sure, as pointed out.
If someone put in the window 'male (or female) only English can apply'; there would rightly be an outcry. I suppose at least this did have an English version but all jobs are supposed to be for all gender orientations in these enlightened times we live. And for all ethnicities etc. Such adverts are the anti-thesis on inclusion.
Stating a male or female is questionable and those only in Turkish just perpetuate the non-diversity of local restaurants and shops. Perhaps we should boycott them until they actually start showing real diversity and inclusion.
Well OK. But I thought there was such a thing as "positive discrimination". For example if an organisation applied for one of the Quality Standards diversity would be one of the tests for Quality compliance. If a business employed too high a proportion of males for example it would be required to recruit more women wouldn't it. So in those circumstances would such a sign be unlawful? And a boycott would be completely unfair! I'm not suggesting that is necessarily the case here of course but I doubt anyone here can say for certain that it isn't, so we really shouldn't prejudge without being in possession of all the facts.
It's only legal in the UK to discriminate in favour of one job applicant over the other using a "protected characteristic" (race, gender etc) as a "tie-breaker between two candidates of equal merit" and in a direction that is represented in your own workforce, ie, if you have more women than men in your particular company and your business is Engineering and most engineers are men overall, you can only use this clause to discriminate in favour of men because of the situation in your particular business, not your overall industry.
It could not apply to the poster because you can't assume that you're going to have equally matched applicants before they've applied.
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
© Copyright Harringay Online Created by Hugh