It’s a confusing headline, but not quite confusing enough to get me to give the Daily Mail a click
PracticeNo8733 on
It’s not really “on environmental grounds”, it’s on grounds of discrimination based on a philosophical belief. The court found that her belief in environmentalism wasn’t actually very strong and believed she just wanted the money.
The respondents got her to admit that she was perfectly willing to compromise her beliefs when it suited her.
hitanthrope on
“over claims that she was discriminated against for her belief in social and environmental justice”
🙄
I bet she’s a delight.
Bigtallanddopey on
This sounds like the “environmental officer” at my last job. She would go around the office, telling people off for not recycling, or for not using public transport for work travel or for not cycling to work.
Yet, she never cycled to work, always drove. She always took the train for work, (always took longer and often coincided with visiting friends ), but she nearly always flew home to Europe, was a vegan for a couple of weeks, but decided it wasn’t for her and ate meat every day.
Now, none of the above would be too bad. But when you look at her LinkedIn, she’s made an entire career out of being an “environmentalist”, she was earning close to £60k when I left, with only two years in the job since leaving uni doing a design degree. And now she’s recently been promoted because of the good work she’s been doing. It’s an absolute con as far as I can tell, doesn’t improve the company, except maybe it’s environmental image.
Do_You_Pineapple_Bro on
Yeah, dumbass, you should be swimming to the Canaries
El_Scot on
I really wish they would explain why she was disputing them, rather than focussing on the flights bit.
elmundio87 on
If she didn’t get on the plane, someone else would have. And even if they didn’t, she had no effect on emissions.
This would be a different story if she took a private jet.
8 Comments
It’s a confusing headline, but not quite confusing enough to get me to give the Daily Mail a click
It’s not really “on environmental grounds”, it’s on grounds of discrimination based on a philosophical belief. The court found that her belief in environmentalism wasn’t actually very strong and believed she just wanted the money.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-h-bannerman-v-the-land-restoration-trust-3306483-slash-2024 – Interim relief judgement. Around para 44+ is the most relevant part (to the headline at least)
The respondents got her to admit that she was perfectly willing to compromise her beliefs when it suited her.
“over claims that she was discriminated against for her belief in social and environmental justice”
🙄
I bet she’s a delight.
This sounds like the “environmental officer” at my last job. She would go around the office, telling people off for not recycling, or for not using public transport for work travel or for not cycling to work.
Yet, she never cycled to work, always drove. She always took the train for work, (always took longer and often coincided with visiting friends ), but she nearly always flew home to Europe, was a vegan for a couple of weeks, but decided it wasn’t for her and ate meat every day.
Now, none of the above would be too bad. But when you look at her LinkedIn, she’s made an entire career out of being an “environmentalist”, she was earning close to £60k when I left, with only two years in the job since leaving uni doing a design degree. And now she’s recently been promoted because of the good work she’s been doing. It’s an absolute con as far as I can tell, doesn’t improve the company, except maybe it’s environmental image.
Yeah, dumbass, you should be swimming to the Canaries
I really wish they would explain why she was disputing them, rather than focussing on the flights bit.
If she didn’t get on the plane, someone else would have. And even if they didn’t, she had no effect on emissions.
This would be a different story if she took a private jet.