The Mail Does It Again.

You know when somebody says that something happened?

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.


  1. Sued by unreliable people? If ever there was a legal risk I was willing to take...

  2. Thank you for this. It smelled to me from the start. http://dairystatedad.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-this-phony-story.html

  3. PS, I love your motto:
    "Trying to understand the world through swearing, ignorance and knee-jerk reaction"

  4. Shellsuitwarrior28 January 2010 at 15:22

    When I first heard this story, I thought it smelled a bit fishy too.

    So I gave Nicole Mamo a call (as I'm a journo and Thetford's in my patch) yesterday morning.

    My instinct suggested it was some kind of publicity stunt, but her website's under reconstruction - so I figured if it was some kind of PR move, it was a little ham-fisted.

    Anyway she told me the story and I have to say, I didn't detect any deceit on her part.

    She was quite surprised at all the media interest as she said that she had simply made some comment on her Facebook page at what had happened. Somehow (and this was a little odd) the Adrian Goldberg show on Talksport picked it up and interviewed her.

    It then made it to the wider media somehow. From looking at the Mail website, there's a credit to Mason's on the photo - which is a Cambridgeshire based news agency. I'm guessing someone there must have listened to Talksport, did a piece on her and circulated it.

    Here's my theory on what happened:

    Mamo tries to place her job ad. It comes across the desk of a low-level worker at the Thetford Job Centre. They've misinterpreted some recent guidance on what is acceptable in a job ad - and in an arse-covering excercise, they tell her she can't use 'reliable' in her ad.

    Surprised at this Mamo posts a Facebook update and the whole thing snowballs from there.