We no longer need a joke thread

That left me scratching my head .

RIDICULOUS !
 
I think there is enough statistical material to prove these are not stereotypes :exit:
 
cambsno said:
Had posted about that on WAMT thread - pathetic!!! As if people will be offended by it!!
Click to expand...

Not so sure, bus driver refused to drive a bus because the number on the destination board was in the gay pride colours
Reckoned it promoted homosexuality, so who knows how easily offended some people are these days
 
tijuana taxi said:
Not so sure, bus driver refused to drive a bus because the number on the destination board was in the gay pride colours
Reckoned it promoted homosexuality, so who knows how easily offended some people are these days
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've just read that on the BBC. I fancy he's soon to be an unemployed bus driver.
 
jakeblu said:
Yeah, I've just read that on the BBC. I fancy he's soon to be an unemployed bus driver.
Click to expand...

He has been fired, rightly so. Not because I have a particular moral view but because you don't get to decide who your employer chooses to promote. You drive the goddam bus.

Sorry, suspended apparently.
 
Last edited:
chris954 said:
But what about this? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/muslim-pharmacist-refuses-to-give-morning-after-pill-on-religious-grounds-7250061.html?amp
Click to expand...
That's where I'd draw the line. When it comes to another person's life and health the professionals have one job to do: treat the patient as best they can. This lady was a patient and the morning after pill is a treatment. If the pharmacist has a problem with that let them go to a country where their narrow minds will be welcome.
 
chris954 said:
But what about this? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....er-pill-on-religious-grounds-7250061.html?amp
Click to expand...
AndrewFlannigan said:
That's where I'd draw the line. When it comes to another person's life and health the professionals have one job to do: treat the patient as best they can. This lady was a patient and the morning after pill is a treatment. If the pharmacist has a problem with that let them go to a country where their narrow minds will be welcome.
Click to expand...

An interesting PoV in that article and like lots of such news reports a one sided report.

Firstly, I had no idea the MAP was sold OTC on request.

A pharmacy and its staff are a service providers, the customer is not a patient as it was made clear she wished to buy it and did not have a prescription. NB when you pay for a prescription you are not buying the item but paying a government levy!

As was outlined by the BPS spokesperson an individual pharmacist has personal discretion as to what is sold OTC.......if he had declined to fulfil a doctor's prescription IMO that would indeed be a breach of his duty.

Two sub-subjects of concern in the story ~ one is the inappropriately loose remarks by the assistant (does she really know the reason or isn't what she told the customer only an opinion) and the customers underlying concern about not being able to see her doctor in good time to get a prescription.

Lastly, I do wonder if it would have been such a story if the pharmacist in question was a devout Christian who refused such a sale on religious grounds?
 
Box Brownie said:
Lastly, I do wonder if it would have been such a story if the pharmacist in question was a devout Christian who refused such a sale on religious grounds?
Click to expand...
It certainly would have been to me. Anyone whose religion allows them to harm another needs a new religion.
 
Box Brownie said:
Two sub-subjects of concern in the story ~ one is the inappropriately loose remarks by the assistant (does she really know the reason or isn't what she told the customer only an opinion) and the customers underlying concern about not being able to see her doctor in good time to get a prescription.

Lastly, I do wonder if it would have been such a story if the pharmacist in question was a devout Christian who refused such a sale on religious grounds?
Click to expand...

If the pharmacist hadn't said it then the assistant could lose her job
It's not the same as an abortion on any grounds, 36 hours after making a mistake
you have no idea whether you are pregnant, I'll assume the pharmacist has no problem
supplying condoms or rather them being sold in his workplace ?
 
chris954 said:
Not exactly the same circumstances but there was this case a few months ago.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....ge-cake-customer-takes-case-to-european-court
Click to expand...
Yes, I recall that story/case. As you say not same circumstances. The bakery as I recall was an independent business.

What is intriguing about the pharmacy case is that Lloyds Pharmacy simply (?) apologised but the BPS explained the practices & protocols that members 'follow'.....now, I surmise that the pharmacist is an employee therefore if Lloyds policy (not mentioned, was it?) is to sell whatever the customer requests provided they are age appropriate. But if it went say to an employment tribunal would his Professional practices take precedence over the 'interpretation' of his his employment contract. FWIW I doubt there is any article or term covering this in an employment contract!
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
It certainly would have been to me. Anyone whose religion allows them to harm another needs a new religion.
Click to expand...

Agreed, though it had been said that all wars have at their root a religion.

In the case of the pharmacist it may well be his religion that drives him (as is the case for many 'of faith') but (and why I spoke of the assistants opinion?) is he not as likely to have told her 'i will not OTC sell it but will only do so with a prescription' and she embellished that 'her way'?
 
chris954 said:
If you were a vegan would you apply for a job in an abattoir?
Click to expand...

I am not a vegan and still would not want a job in an abbattoir let alone apply for one. In the past I have visited abbattoir/meat processing factories on business and my abiding memory is the way the smell clung to my clothes and in my nostrils for hours afterwards. I much preferred the visits I made to the vegetable packhouses :)
 
Box Brownie said:
In the case of the pharmacist it may well be his religion that drives him (as is the case for many 'of faith') but (and why I spoke of the assistants opinion?) is he not as likely to have told her 'i will not OTC sell it but will only do so with a prescription' and she embellished that 'her way'?
Click to expand...

Why take a job where your religion/ethics prevent you from selling/doing some of the product ?

You stated
Lloyds policy (not mentioned, was it?) is to sell whatever the customer requests provided they are age appropriate.
Click to expand...
So therefore there is no legal or employee contract rules that prevented the lady from purchasing the product
 
Box Brownie said:
I am not a vegan and still would not want a job in an abbattoir let alone apply for one. In the past I have visited abbattoir/meat processing factories on business and my abiding memory is the way the smell clung to my clothes and in my nostrils for hours afterwards. I much preferred the visits I made to the vegetable packhouses :)
Click to expand...

Sorry that wasn’t directed at you, I was just stating generally.
 
Gremlin said:
Why take a job where your religion/ethics prevent you from selling/doing some of the product ?

You stated

So therefore there is no legal or employee contract rules that prevented the lady from purchasing the product
Click to expand...

If viewed as purely a retail situation, AFAIK a shop keeper is under no obligation to sell any products. As a buyer we have no 'right' to 'demand' to buy said products.

On a side note ~ I think I recall that the tickets we buy to travel by plane/train/bus place no obligation on the airline et al to get from A to B.......they are just proving that you paid them to carry you!
 
Box Brownie said:
If viewed as purely a retail situation, AFAIK a shop keeper is under no obligation to sell any products.
Click to expand...
I think the lawyers could have a field day with that in some circumstances. Taking an extreme example: suppose a man crawls into a grocery holding out money and says I'm dying of thirst: sell me water". If the shopkeeper says "no" and the man dies has the shopkeeper committed homicide by refusing to sell him the water?
 
Box Brownie said:
If viewed as purely a retail situation, AFAIK a shop keeper is under no obligation to sell any products. As a buyer we have no 'right' to 'demand' to buy said products.
Click to expand...

What if he works for a company who's policy is to sell it to appropriate people, this was Lloyds Pharmacy and
if this branch was franchised then he should have taken it on knowing this if he had problems with abortion/contraception.
One has to ask, does he refuse to dispense the contraceptive pill
 
Gremlin said:
Why take a job where your religion/ethics prevent you from selling/doing some of the product ?
Click to expand...

Well I now know for certain there is no meat in McD's breakfast sausage and the bacon isn't real either.
Mine was prepared by someone that was obviously Muslim going on her attire.
:D
 
Last edited:
chris954 said:
If you were a vegan would you apply for a job in an abattoir?
Click to expand...

The law says we cant discriminate based on our beliefs - if you wanted to not sell to someone who is gay for example, so it should go both ways, the person in retail cannot discriminate if it goes against their beliefs. If you don't agree with something fine, just don't work in a job that conflicts.
 
cambsno said:
The law says we cant discriminate based on our beliefs
Click to expand...
It seems "we" can, remember this?

The Supreme Court has ruled that a Northern Ireland bakery's refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.
Ashers Baking Company, based in County Antrim, was taken to court by a gay rights activist, assisted by Northern Ireland's Equality Commission.

Staff at the bakery passed the order to its head office, which considered it to be "at odds with our beliefs".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I think the lawyers could have a field day with that in some circumstances. Taking an extreme example: suppose a man crawls into a grocery holding out money and says I'm dying of thirst: sell me water". If the shopkeeper says "no" and the man dies has the shopkeeper committed homicide by refusing to sell him the water?
Click to expand...
I would have thought the "what would the man on Clapham Omnibus do/say" influence any court decision should such a situation arise let alone get to court???
Gremlin said:
What if he works for a company who's policy is to sell it to appropriate people, this was Lloyds Pharmacy and
if this branch was franchised then he should have taken it on knowing this if he had problems with abortion/contraception.
One has to ask, does he refuse to dispense the contraceptive pill
Click to expand...
AFAIK ref dispensing, is entirely related to fulfilling prescriptions i.e. not a term used to describe OTC sales and if a pharmacy declined to dispense for any reason other than lack of availability I would surmise they would be in breach of their contract with the NHS!
 
Box Brownie said:
AFAIK ref dispensing, is entirely related to fulfilling prescriptions i.e. not a term used to describe OTC sales and if a pharmacy declined to dispense for any reason other than lack of availability I would surmise they would be in breach of their contract with the NHS!
Click to expand...

So why are you advised to "consult your pharmacist" for minor ailments etc.
 
Gremlin said:
So why are you advised to "consult your pharmacist" for minor ailments etc.
Click to expand...
Because all too often people go to their GP for the likes of colds & flu..........so as I understand it the pharmacist can advise on the using the OTC medicines intended to make you feel better and cope until the illness passes. Plus, the pharmacists are professionals and as such they should ask all the relevent questions......if that reveals a condition requiring a doctor's attention they act accordingly.

Advising people to talk to a pharmacist for simple ailments is not a bad approach.

Even the local walk-in centre only has nurse practitioners so they can only triage as needed.

The whole question over the layers on/within health service support is social/political/medical quagmire.
 
Box Brownie said:
Because all too often people go to their GP for the likes of colds & flu..........so as I understand it the pharmacist can advise on the using the OTC medicines intended to make you feel better and cope until the illness passes. Plus, the pharmacists are professionals and as such they should ask all the relevent questions......if that reveals a condition requiring a doctor's attention they act accordingly.

Advising people to talk to a pharmacist for simple ailments is not a bad approach.

Even the local walk-in centre only has nurse practitioners so they can only triage as needed.

The whole question over the layers on/within health service support is social/political/medical quagmire.
Click to expand...

MAC is available as an OTC treatment.
The assistants personal beliefs are irrelevant in this case.
 
Box Brownie said:
Advising people to talk to a pharmacist for simple ailments is not a bad approach.
Click to expand...

Exactly and this lady was doing just that, trying to buy an over the counter treatment which may have
required advise from the pharmacist, his or the assistants beliefs should not come into it and if they feel that strongly then perhaps not stock it or any other contraceptive type products
 
Cobra said:
It seems "we" can, remember this?

The Supreme Court has ruled that a Northern Ireland bakery's refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.
Ashers Baking Company, based in County Antrim, was taken to court by a gay rights activist, assisted by Northern Ireland's Equality Commission.

Staff at the bakery passed the order to its head office, which considered it to be "at odds with our beliefs".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233
Click to expand...

This came up again yesterday, because the gay activist (forget his name) has taken it to the European court. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49350891?

The ruling that acquitted the bakery was that they had not disciminated against the individual because he was gay, but instead refused to make the cake because they did not like the slogan. IIRC the backstory was also that the activist had known the bakery was run by people who were likely to refuse, and ordering the cake was intended to provoke this situation - I don't know how true that is, but considering the determination with which the case has been fought, it would not be a complete surprise.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
MAC is available as an OTC treatment.
The assistants personal beliefs are irrelevant in this case.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected, as mentioned I was not aware that it is an OTC treatment.
Gremlin said:
Exactly and this lady was doing just that, trying to buy an over the counter treatment which may have
required advise from the pharmacist, his or the assistants beliefs should not come into it and if they feel that strongly then perhaps not stock it or any other contraceptive type products
Click to expand...

As it is an OTC and the BPS mentioned that individual discretion is part of their 'practice' then more to the whole matter than meets the eye.
 
Cobra said:
It seems "we" can, remember this?

The Supreme Court has ruled that a Northern Ireland bakery's refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.
Ashers Baking Company, based in County Antrim, was taken to court by a gay rights activist, assisted by Northern Ireland's Equality Commission.

Staff at the bakery passed the order to its head office, which considered it to be "at odds with our beliefs".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233
Click to expand...


see post #13
 
Professor1991 said:
So wait, your're trying to tell me, I have to actually talk about Photography on this site now ?
Click to expand...

It's only compulsory for wedding photographers.
 
chris954 said:
see post #13
Click to expand...
Yep I just re-iterated as some people didn't appear to read the link (y)

And TBH a lot of people don't actually click links for one reason or another.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I don't know how true that is, but considering the determination with which the case has been fought, it would not be a complete surprise.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't surprise me either TBH
 
Professor1991 said:
So wait, your're trying to tell me, I have to actually talk about Photography on this site now ?
Click to expand...

The clue is, as they say, in the name, although really it should be called 'type photography'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top