Christmas Party and Sex Harassment Suit Equals Banned

This from Manchester Evening News:

Boss bans festive celebrations
Chris Osuh


A BOSS has banned workers from holding a Christmas party as a way of preventing any festive hanky panky.

Chris Hamer, managing director of Whitefield advertising firm ADZ Media, says he would prefer an office trip to a museum instead.

ADZ's team of 16 employees had already organised a meal and drinks followed by a party at the city centre's swanky Radisson Edwardian hotel.


But Chris is now refusing to fund a works "do" because of reports which suggest office parties can lead to harassment, discrimination and unfair dismissal claims against employers.

Mr Hamer, 50, said: "My staff are being dead miserable about it, but I think a Christmas party would be a risk.

"We have an even number of boys and girls in their twenties, and if you add in lots of booze and hotel rooms, the worst could happen. I don't want them to think I don't trust them, but I don't want to be responsible for a festive romp.

"If people get together, it could cause problems in the workplace because they can't face each other; it's a small office and that would be really awkward.

Banned

"Or worse, if they became inseparable, they wouldn't get any work done and I could get a husband coming after me."

This Christmas will be the first time in ADZ's eight-year history that the company has not had a festive bash. Mr Hamer, from Ramsbottom, adds: "If they want to organise their own do, or if we go to an art exhibition or a museum, that would be fine."

Research by Manchester-based employment consultancy Peninsula - which questioned 852 employers about their plans for the festive season - found that 82 per cent of the bosses would ban parties.

Of those, 84 per cent said they'd had complaints from staff in the past because of previous incidents. A similar number said relationships and affairs were a regular feature at parties and created tension lasting weeks.

Almost 80 per cent said they were worried about the threat of tribunal claims from disgruntled staff over incidents, while 78 per cent said the costs of organising a party were too high.

Seventy-five per cent admitted that they were cancelling celebrations for fear of offending non-Christian staff.

Peninsula's managing director, Peter Done, said: "Bosses want to reward their staff, but they are proceeding with caution due to the threat of litigation."

More Election Year Journalism

In hopes of making voters angry enough to vote for more commies in this years upcomming elections the AP has published this timely report on Hurricane Katrina which happened well over a year a go:


Whites Appealed Katrina Insurance More

Oct 24, 4:20 PM (ET)

By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI and FRANK BASS

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Though poor and minority neighborhoods suffered the brunt of Katrina's fury, residents living in white neighborhoods have been three times as likely as homeowners in black neighborhoods to seek state help in resolving insurance disputes, according to an Associated Press computer analysis.

The analysis of Louisiana's insurance complaints settled in the first year after Katrina highlights a cold, hard truth exposed by Katrina's winds and waters: People of color and modest means, who often need the most help after a major disaster, are disconnected from the government institutions that can provide it, or distrustful of those in power.

The Littles and the Kitchens watched helplessly as Hurricane Katrina battered their homes. Both families waited patiently for an insurance adjuster to settle their losses. And both were sorely disappointed with the outcome. Then, their paths diverged.

Richard and Cindy Little, a white couple living in a predominantly white neighborhood, filed a complaint with the Louisiana Department of Insurance. Eventually, they won full reimbursement for their repairs.

Doretha and Roy Kitchens, a black couple living in New Orleans' overwhelmingly black Lower Ninth Ward, simply gave up and took what their insurer gave them. They didn't know they could appeal to the state.

"The blacks didn't complain 'cause they got tired," said Doretha Kitchens, 58, who recalls numerous phone calls to her insurer that often ended with her being put on hold. Ultimately, she accepted her insurer's offer of about $34,000 for damages that actually total more than $120,000.

The insurance industry and state regulators say they made special efforts - even in the midst of Katrina's chaos - to reach out to poor and minority neighborhoods to inform them of options.

But their ad appeals on local radio did little to inform the thousands of mostly black residents who were displaced to Houston. And giving a toll free number for help didn't help poor minorities who stayed behind with no telephone or cell service. Officials acknowledge victims slipped through the cracks.

"The message doesn't get to everyone," Louisiana Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon said.

More than 700,000 insurance claims were filed for damage resulting from Katrina in Gulf Coast states and to date, only $14.9 billion out of $25.3 billion in insured losses have been paid, the national risk modeling firm ISO estimates.

In Louisiana, more than 8,000 residents have filed Katrina-related complaints with the state insurance office. Using open records law, AP obtained the files of more than 3,000 complaints that have already been settled and analyzed the outcomes by the demographics of the victims' current zip code neighborhood.

Nearly 75 percent of the settled cases were filed by residents currently living in predominantly white neighborhoods. Just 25 percent were filed by households in majority-black zip codes, the analysis found.

AP analyzed 3,118 complaints filed by homeowners still living in Louisiana. The state's data did not identify whether the addresses on complaints were the same locations as the damaged homes. The state also refused to release any information on approximately 5,000 complaints still under review.

The findings surprise few on the front lines of a disaster that has reawakened issues of racial equality.

Donelon, the insurance commissioner, said his department made an extra effort to reach as many people as possible and let them know the agency was willing to press their case with insurers.

State workers crisscrossed the state, using mobile complaint centers, user-friendly Web sites and advertisements on television and radio. When complaints were received, state insurance officials determined whether they had merit, and lobbied insurance companies for more money for homeowners when warranted.

That message, however, never reached the water-stained stoop of Doretha Kitchens' house, which was enveloped in a 9-foot wave of muddy water when the Lower Ninth Ward's aging levees broke. For months, she had no access to computer, radio or TV and couldn't hear the state agency's messages.

"My husband didn't want to be bothered. I asked him, 'Why don't we sue the insurance company?' He said, 'They ain't gonna do nothing no way.' White just decided they was gonna go file. Black, we just gave up easier."

The Kitchens didn't have flood insurance but their dispute with the insurer was over damage in their attic, where winds ripped off the roof.

At first, Richard and Cindy Little didn't fare much better.

Four towering pine trees crashed into their tidy ranch-style home in Slidell, a predominantly white bedroom community north of New Orleans.

When their insurer agreed to pay only two-thirds of the cost of the repairs, the Littles used their savings to cover the cost of the construction - then began battling Allstate, the state's No. 2 insurer, over the final settlement.

They wrote letters to congressmen, secured copies of an adjuster's report, spent hours compiling receipts, made countless phone calls and filed a complaint with insurance regulators.

Eventually, their efforts paid off, but they acknowledge the fight wasn't easy and that the family's finances played a large role in their perseverance.

"We had money in the bank so we could wait them out," said Cindy Little, 50. "We could wait to get what's owed."

Mike Trevino, a spokesman for Northbrook, Ill.-based Allstate, said the state agency had treated minority and white homeowners equally. The figures obtained by AP support his contention.

In cases where Louisiana insurance regulators were able to get more money from insurers for homeowners, the amount for minorities and whites was roughly the same: about $40,000.

But Trevino also acknowledges that the insurer was overwhelmed by the scope of the disaster that led half of its 300,000 Louisiana customers to file claims.

"It could be that there were mistakes, that it wasn't a good performance by the adjuster. But what's important to remember is that it was then, and still is, an extraordinary event ... and it certainly did stretch our ability to serve customers in the very best way possible," Trevino said.

Though there was no disparity in the outcome of state complaints, the racial divide is clearly apparent in who accessed the system and how often they did so.

In New Orleans, where blacks made up two-thirds of the 454,863 pre-Katrina population, only about 445 homeowners resolved complaints with the state department. In contrast, the mostly white residents in suburban Slidell resolved more complaints (489) even though their population is 16 times smaller.

Minority distrust in government also shows up in polling. AP-Ipsos polls taken shortly after the hurricane last year showed 56 percent of minorities said they doubted the government could really help them during a disaster.

Alan Jenkins, a former Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who lobbies for minority opportunities, said AP's analysis reinforces a little-discussed reality exposed by Katrina.

"The promise of opportunity isn't equally available," he said. "Race and income has made a big difference in people's ability to start over."

Jenkins said state and federal agencies need to adopt different techniques to reach historically disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Aloyd Edinburgh, who lives not far from the Kitchens in the Lower Ninth Ward, exemplifies the problem.

The 75-year-old retired cab driver said he doesn't have much use for insurers or state regulators. All around him are signs of abandoned battles - buckled homes, distorted cars, hip-high weeds and the smell of decay.

Edinburgh's insurer gave him $35,000 out of a policy worth $85,000. He is slowly and painstakingly repairing his gutted house, sleeping in a trailer parked in his driveway. Like many in his neighborhood, he didn't know the state could help. But like many neighbors, he has little faith - and at his age - little time.

"The best thing I can do is take the money I did receive and go to work," says the old man, his eyes clouded with cataracts. "Am I satisfied? Hell, no, I'm not satisfied ... Am I mad? Hell, yeah, I'm mad. But to complain about it. What's the use?"

The analysis also suggests income was a factor. The average resident who sought state help lives in a neighborhood with a median household income of $39,709, compared with the statewide median of $32,566 in the 2000 Census.

Rant from The Chauvinist Corner

A Rant from The Chauvinist Corner in response to a femcommie teacher:


There is nothing sadder than seeing a girl come to the realization that her chances of pursuing any future are limited because of her gender.
This is absurd. Class, here is a simple assignment that will show this statement to be false on the face of it: take a pencil and number on your paper from one to ten. Now list beside each number, one thing sadder than having a limited future in the workplace. I will do number one for you. A girl finds out that she has cancer and will be dead in six months. That should appear sadder, even to a feminist. I am sure that the rest of the list will be just as easy for you to compile.

Moving beyond that, it grows tiresome to hear feminists speak of people being limited by the facts of life, as if that were a bad thing. Men are limited in what they can do as well. (Not that you care a bit about that!) Men cannot go up to a prospective employer and say, "You must hire me because I am a man." They have never been able to do that. The very idea of it is absurd. Men have always had to prove themselves worthy of the job and even then they often did not get the position. Intellect, physical prowess, and yes, even gender are valid limiting factors in many occupations. It is time that we stopped being so sad over that fact and once again move into reality.

Lastly, the feminist never sheds any tears over the poor woman who wants to be a homemaker. NEVER! It is not sad to them if she has that dream ripped from her by a society that has no use for those who would create the next generation of civilized human beings.

Government had nothing to do with the emergence of this movement.


This is so far from the truth that it is outrageous! If the government had not become involved first, through the courts, and later though the legislative process, there would be no feminist movement as we know it. Oh sure the lesbians would run around and bellyache that they did not fit into normal society, but nobody would care. It has been the government enforcing feminism that has made it the destructive force that it is today. I remember the sixties. The vast majority of women made a point of saying openly that they were not "Women's Libbers". It was not a popular movement that merely caught on to the masses. It was forced upon us through the government and media propaganda.

I believe that the collective behavior of men towards women produced the conditions from which a heightened sensitivity to women's issues developed.


Of course everyone is entitled to their own belief system. However, what you fail to point out is that no societal system is perfect, and the Leftist has always used imperfection as a wedge for his oppressive view. He always cries out for the "revolution" as if it were going to be pure heaven after he takes over. All during the sixties we heard this refrain, on several fronts. The Leftist was going to make life so much better for woman and everyone. It was far more difficult to sell that lie in America than it was in Russia. In the early 1900s, Russia lived in a poorer society, which was more oppressive under the Czar. In America during the 1950s we had freedom, we had wealth, we had solid families, the BEST schools in the world, a low crime rate, with the accompanying safe neighborhoods, and of course a very bright future before us. The Leftist had to try and find a way to make the very best society that had ever existed on planet earth to appear lacking and in need of change. Without help they could never have pulled it off.

What imperfection did the Leftist find to use against us? Why "the collective behavior of men towards women." Most women of the 1950s were living in luxury that few woman had ever dreamed of in previous centuries. They had nice homes, happy families and many new devices to make the work of caring for the house much easier for them. They had many fellow mothers to associate with, and to help supervise the children during the day, and things had never been better, for such a large portion of women, who had ever lived in any society before. The collective behavior of men was, at that time, to go out and work for their families, paying the bills and staying around to help support and raise the children for life.

To show the Leftist hypocrisy for what it is, what has been the result of the feminist movement upon this superb 1950s society? Today, men and women are divorced almost routinely. Very few marriages last throughout even the childrearing years, let alone through life. Women are forced into the workplace, and through the accompanied side effect of divorce, they are left with having to work full time and in addition to that, try to do the full time job of homemaker, all by themselves. Children no longer have to worry as they "wait till their fathers gets home" if they act up, and so they just act up more. In the teen years they often become very troubling, and even criminal. The one option that the vast majority of women wanted to be able to choose, that of being a good and happy homemaker, has been taken from them, and the Leftist smiles and says, "See what we have done for you?"

That shows clearly that feminism is not about "women's issues." NOW does not speak for women. It speaks for Leftist women only. When a feminist speaks of "women's" issues, he is speaking of issues that only concern Leftist women. Feminists do not care about women. They only care about their agenda, and promoting the destructive ideals of feminism. If killing three quarters of our wonderful women would accomplish that agenda, they would not hesitate to do it. (This was demonstrated during the Carter administration when the feminists were pushing hard to create a female draft, to force unwilling women into dangerous military service.)

What government actually did, however, was to remove (through law) men's options of limiting the futures of women and it brought the status of women into more direct compliance with the constitution.

It never ceases to amaze me that Leftists even refer to the constitution as if it were a document that they valued at all. Every one of their actions is directed at destroying the constitution and then they hold it up and say, "See how much we love the constitution." If you cared a whit about the constitution you would look at what the writers of that constitution practiced, and the laws that they created under it. You will notice that feminism played no part whatsoever in that arena. Women did not have the vote, and there were no laws which tried to limit the freedom of businessmen to run THEIR OWN BUSINESSES as they saw fit. Freedom was the intent, and liberty was the result of our constitution.

So, is it fair, accurate or honest to claim that what has transpired over the last 40 years has brought us into "more direct compliance with the constitution?" It is clear that we have moved in direct defiance of the constitution and its spirit. If society wishes to open the door of its businesses to women, then that is society's choice to make, not the government's. Since the constitution writers did not intend for government to interfere in such matters, obviously your claim that such interference is in line with the constitution is absurd. The constitution was intended to tie the government's hand, and to limit the power it has, so that it could not do what it has been doing recently: oppressing the people.

It is easy to come up with nice sounding excuses for oppression. Just think how fair it would be if we took all the money in the United States and just handed it out equally to all the people. Everyone is equally valuable, and so why shouldn't everyone have exactly the same amount of money? Oh, yes, it is easy to make oppression sound wonderful as the feminists do, but the results of their actions speak louder than all their rhetoric.


Men could no longer treat women with impunity. What a radical idea that women should be extended the same rights as men!


You mean what an absurd idea that women should be extended the same rights as men. Since men and women are different, they have different needs. If the same rights were extended to both sexes, women would, by definition have to be drafted into the military just like men, otherwise men would not the same rights as women. In divorces men would have to have custody of the children as often as woman. The right to a gender specific restroom would be null and void, for what if a man were to continue a business conversation in the restroom, leaving a woman out of it? Women right now are treated differently than men in many ways, by our legal system, and our society. They are treated better in many ways, than men. That is as it should be. If your assertion were taken seriously all of the special consideration for women would instantly disappear, and any legal issue that was considered "women's" would of course be cast aside as ridiculous for there would be no legal differences between two genders that have equal rights.

In a democracy such as ours, you do not have the right to limit anyone for any reason whatsoever.
Really? So, you are saying that I should be able to walk into a company and insist that they give me the CEO position along with the associated paycheck today. If you say no, you are limiting me and according to you, you have no such right. How is it that Leftists can get away with saying such stupid things in public? It is amazing to me.

Of course I have the right to create any limits I choose within my company. If I wish to hire only left-handed redheads, that is my constitutional (as originally written and understood) right! Neither you nor anyone else (especially the US government) has the right to tell me who to hire or promote in a business that I create from my own invested capitol. If I choose to limit women in my business then in a free society I have that right. If I choose to hire only women, I have that right. It is none of the government's business either way. It is a sign of how eagerly you support oppression that you are willing to throw out everyone's freedom in order for the government to make someone else follow your political agenda. That is not American, it is anti-American.

To be more precise it's Communism
.

The Invisible Invasion

This from Men's News Daily:

Exclusive: Dutch Author Hiding from Islamic Extremists in Holland
October 21, 2006
by Jim Kouri, CPP

From 1998 until 2006, W.G. Van Dorian worked as an attorney in Criminal Law and Immigration Law in The Netherlands and Aruba. As such, Van Dorian came into close contact with terrorism and religious extremism. After the recent murders of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh and Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn (supposedly the next president), Van Dorian decided The Netherlands was no longer a safe haven to write anything that is critical towards extremism.

He emigrated from The Netherlands to South America to publish his novel without having to fear repercussions from extremists.

Part One of a series titled The New World Order, the fictional thriller, The Invisible Invasion, describes a possible escalation in the world of (nuclear) conflict in the future with very realistic roots of religious extremism in present day Europe.

Recently, contributor Jim Kouri spoke with Van Dorian via e-mail. He remains in hiding in South America.

Jim Kouri:
The Invisible Invasion is a fiction novel. Nevertheless, events that occur in the book don’t seem to be far from reality. How much is fiction and how much is already occurring?

W. G. Van Dorian:
As a defense attorney I was close to the fire. I had to defend suspected terrorists. Not just as my clients but also in daily life one noticed the aggressive behavior with which many Islamic immigrants refused to adapt to European culture and lifestyle (backed by overanxious leftist interest groups) and eventually turned against that society by renouncing anything that is different to Islamic culture, such as: fair treatment of women, tolerance, freedom of speech, human rights (except when they can appeal for discrimination, etc). The European societies backed by leftist politics let them for years and now someone who dares to criticize or even discuss Islam is a dead man. It’s like this was their plan all along, thus I chose the title “the invisible invasion”. Even though it’s just a fiction thriller, I see these events as the beginning of the end of democracy and freedom of speech.

Kouri:
You call the ‘Bad guys’ “Radicals” yet all directions in the book go toward Radical Islam. Why not call them such?

Van Dorian:
Radicals come in many ways: not just religion but also Ideology. I used this example because I consider this group one of the most dangerous groups for world peace in this day and age and I was right in the middle of their thoughts and ways.

Kouri:
It’s a Fiction novel but you mixed elements of the past (holocaust / Sign of David on clothes, etc) into a possible future. Why this unique mixture?

Van Dorian:
Simple. History repeats itself all the time and we see things happen all over again because people don’t seem to learn from history. Jew hatred, a passive Europe that let’s extremists hide behind and manipulate human rights so they can continue without people noticing it or wanting to notice it. I wanted to try to shake some people and groups awake.

State of Emergency

This from World Net Daily:

In 'State of Emergency,' commentator
says today's kids will see death of West

WASHINGTON – The Mexican government is not just winking at massive illegal immigration into the U.S., it is actively plotting it as a strategy at reconquest of American territories formerly under its control, charges Pat Buchanan in a blistering new indictment of border security.

The book, scheduled for release Tuesday, has risen to No. 2 on Amazon's bestsellers list.
In "State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America," the WND columnist paints a dim portrait of America's future: "The children born in 2006 will witness in their lifetimes the death of the West.

"As Rome passed away, so, the West is passing away, from the same causes and in much the same way. What the Danube and Rhine were to Rome, the Rio Grande and Mediterranean are to America and Europe, the frontiers of a civilization no longer defended."

Translate Page Into Your Language

Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com



Image Hosted by UploadHouse.com









del.icio.us linkroll

Archive

Counter

Counter

web tracker

Widget

Site Meter

Blog Patrol Counter