While looking for something on the Internet, I came across this, Can you believe it! Being a parent myself I find it hard to believe that a school would not know if a stranger was lurking around, although I don’t pick my child up everyday I can put parents faces to each child in my son’s class and I’m sure others can in there son’s or daughter’s classes. What a shame for the school involved because I for one certainly enjoy seeing my son having fun and learning how to compete.  What are you views?

I will be reviewing the 9 parts of the Bill over a series of 9 posts. In part one there is a duty on public bodies to consider reducing social economic inequalities. This duty will operate at a strategic level rather than an operational level, eg: Public bodies could set a strategy to ensure that children from less well off areas have a chance of going to the “best” schools by ensuring that parents in those areas have access to resources to help navigate their way through complex admission arrangements.

This section appears to me an admission that in prioritising sex/sexual orientation and race equality, the government have overlooked class inequality. Overall this section’s impact on employers is minimal but I can see that it could be controversial.

In particular in considering say socio economic deprivation of children, which child is more deprived?:

Child A who is from a one income household earning below the national average whose parent or parents take a great interest in the child and attend school activities regularly and encourage participation in sport and other interests.

Child B who is from a dual, high income family, whose parents do not get in from work, after a long commute from London, until 8.00pm and who have little or no time to see their children in the week.

Most people would say Child B is more deprived, but local authorities and other public bodies will consider targeting resources at Child A.

The RSPCA are investigating and the maximum sentence for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal (which is undoubtedly what happened here although one doesn’t want to think about it!) is six months in prison and a £20,000 fine.  The handler had as of yesterday not been suspended by the force.

Whilst accidents do happen, a dog handler really ought to know better one could argue.  Let this blog be a reminder to all those responsible for pets! Is this potentially a Gross Misconduct offence which the force ought to be investigating and suspending for.  My view is yes what is yours??

This works as follows:

Department A employs men performing work of equal value to that of men and women in Department B.

The women in Department B can present an equal pay complaint using the men in Department A as comparators.

The men in Department B can not present an equal pay complaint using the men in Department A as comparators because a comparator has to be of the opposite gender.

However, once the women in Department B have won their equal pay complaint, the men in Department B are left being paid less than the women in Department B and therefore can claim equal pay with the women in department B.

As luck would have it, an internationally known celebrity is now between jobs and available. Perhaps he could share an item of fruit with this man?

One item that caught my eye was this one about Ronnie Biggs.  I have followed this case since I was a youngster and just wondered what our readers think about the decision to let Ronnie Biggs stay in jail until he dies.  Is he a cheeky Cockney villian who deserves to live out his last days in freedom with his family or is he an unrepentant thug who should serve his time?  Please let us know what you think.