Like, for example, if I said to you: "I was told I couldn't include a certain word in a job advert", you, as rational, normal human beings, would assume (And not unreasonably, I might add), that this was what had actually happened.
And consequently, it doesn't take a huge logical leap to think that if you read this in a newspaper:
A job centre has been slammed for refusing to display an advert for a 'reliable workers' - because it discriminated against unreliable applicants.
That again, you would think that it had actually happened.
So it's interesting to see that further on in the article that the above passage is taken from, an article which is in fact headlined "Employer told not to post advert for 'reliable' workers because it discriminates against 'unreliable' applicants", and is all about how a woman was stopped from putting a job advert on a Job Site because of the use of the word 'reliable', it says this:
She claimed that the job centre could be sued by unreliable people if they placed the advert on their 'job points' but told Nicole it will remain on their website.
Which is just a little bit fucking different from their initial claim that it wasn't on there at all, isn't it? Of course, after this, the article does it's best to make the whole thing into a bigger deal than it is, throwing quotes from the Campaign against Political Correctness around, who then make assumptions about how long it took the Job Centre to decide that this word couldn't be used (Even though it has been used) and then claim that this time could have been better used to get people jobs, which really is primary school argument level stuff - Trying to get somebody into trouble, based entirely on something they might have done which might possibly get them into trouble - even though, of course, It never fucking happened.
I could delve into the comments, but that'd be like that bit in Saw II when the guy has to jam his hand into that big pile of rusty needles - except in this case, I wouldn't get anything beneficial out of it:- Just regret, shame, and the feeling of abject filthiness.
I know I've not blogged in quite a while and that this is quite a short return, but when you consider that these two passages actually follow each other in the article...
She claimed that the job centre could be sued by unreliable people if they placed the advert on their 'job points' but told Nicole it will remain on their website.
A spokeswoman for the Campaign Against Political Correctness described the decision not to display Nicole's advert as 'ridiculous'.
...Then there's very little I can, or want to, add. I mean, seriously.
Cheers to Little Mark for the heads-up.
