NWpostie wrote: at no point did you offer anything constructive in this debate,
I gave you an actual tribunal case where it was decided, in that case, that type 2 diabetes could not be considered a disability under the Equality Act.
How much more constructive do you want?
I've had type 2 diabetes for about 14 years, it's controlled by and large by tablets and clinical tests every 3 months consisting of a blood test, weight checking and taking blood pressure. I take 5 tablets every day in order to control it. I have never experienced any adverse symptoms even before I was diagnosed and have had none in 14 years and have never taken a day off sick because of it.
NWpostie wrote: at no point did you offer anything constructive in this debate,
I gave you an actual tribunal case where it was decided, in that case, that type 2 diabetes could not be considered a disability under the Equality Act.
How much more constructive do you want?
That was only one case, where the judge made the ruling based on his own experiences, Diabetes affect everybody differently, what may apply in the judges case may not apply to the plaintiff, your debating style was argumentative attacking style.
Which why I couldn't take your comment with all seriousness.
Six of Nine loves Seven of Nine, together in Electric Dreams.
dvbuk55 wrote:I've had type 2 diabetes for about 14 years, it's controlled by and large by tablets and clinical tests every 3 months consisting of a blood test, weight checking and taking blood pressure. I take 5 tablets every day in order to control it. I have never experienced any adverse symptoms even before I was diagnosed and have had none in 14 years and have never taken a day off sick because of it.
Excellent
With support it can be controlled, I hope your work at the time gave you the support you needed to control it. I noticed by your purple colour you are now ex Royal Mail, hopefully this made it easier for you.
Six of Nine loves Seven of Nine, together in Electric Dreams.
dvbuk55 wrote:I've had type 2 diabetes for about 14 years, it's controlled by and large by tablets and clinical tests every 3 months consisting of a blood test, weight checking and taking blood pressure. I take 5 tablets every day in order to control it. I have never experienced any adverse symptoms even before I was diagnosed and have had none in 14 years and have never taken a day off sick because of it.
Excellent
With support it can be controlled, I hope your work at the time gave you the support you needed to control it. I noticed by your purple colour you are now ex Royal Mail, hopefully this made it easier for you.
Thanks NW. Never asked for anything TBH, just refused to eat the cream cakes they periodically brought in for one thing or another -I suspected they did it on purpose to finish me off
I would imagine for this to have reached dismissal stage the argument over whether it's covered has already been lost, whether the business is right in its assertion is a different matter but I would doubt they would be stupid enough not to have covered that position so no it won't be an easy win at a tribunal, type 2 diabetes if manageable through diet is unlikely to need much adjustments so even if it is covered it might not help much.
NWpostie wrote: at no point did you offer anything constructive in this debate,
I gave you an actual tribunal case where it was decided, in that case, that type 2 diabetes could not be considered a disability under the Equality Act.
How much more constructive do you want?
That was only one case, where the judge made the ruling based on his own experiences, Diabetes affect everybody differently, what may apply in the judges case may not apply to the plaintiff, your debating style was argumentative attacking style.
Which why I couldn't take your comment with all seriousness.
Diabetes affects everybody differently.
That is why type 2 is not necessarily covered by the Equality Act.
Far from being "constructive", your assertion that it is and that this would be an easy win for the union at a tribunal, is puerile nonsense.
I am sorry if you find that argumentative but someone has to tell you.
I couldn't give a toss if you take my comment seriously or not. I am right and you are wrong.
NWpostie wrote: at no point did you offer anything constructive in this debate,
I gave you an actual tribunal case where it was decided, in that case, that type 2 diabetes could not be considered a disability under the Equality Act.
How much more constructive do you want?
That was only one case, where the judge made the ruling based on his own experiences, Diabetes affect everybody differently, what may apply in the judges case may not apply to the plaintiff, your debating style was argumentative attacking style.
Which why I couldn't take your comment with all seriousness.
Diabetes affects everybody differently.
That is why type 2 is not necessarily covered by the Equality Act.
Far from being "constructive", your assertion that it is and that this would be an easy win for the union at a tribunal, is puerile nonsense.
I am sorry if you find that argumentative but someone has to tell you.
I couldn't give a toss if you take my comment seriously or not. I am right and you are wrong.
Doesn't the "Equality Act"say that you have to disregard any drugs or diet for instance,that can help the condition,but have to judge the condition as though no treatment has been taken ?
roger wrote:Doesn't the "Equality Act"say that you have to disregard any drugs or diet for instance,that can help the condition,but have to judge the condition as though no treatment has been taken ?
Well I very much doubt it because it wouldn't make sense.
roger wrote:Doesn't the "Equality Act"say that you have to disregard any drugs or diet for instance,that can help the condition,but have to judge the condition as though no treatment has been taken ?
Well I very much doubt it because it wouldn't make sense.
Unless I'm thick(which could be the case) b12 of the "Equality Act does state what I suggested it did.
roger wrote:Doesn't the "Equality Act"say that you have to disregard any drugs or diet for instance,that can help the condition,but have to judge the condition as though no treatment has been taken ?
Well I very much doubt it because it wouldn't make sense.
Unless I'm thick(which could be the case) b12 of the "Equality Act does state what I suggested it did.
There are riders to that statement contained in Section C, which gives rise to the statement that some people will ride the pony to see how far it gets them and when called to book rely on a not too clear set of instructions to create an excuse for absences which may have been unnecessary.
roger wrote:
Doesn't the "Equality Act"say that you have to disregard any drugs or diet for instance,that can help the condition,but have to judge the condition as though no treatment has been taken ?
Yes it does.
If however the "diet" simply consists of avoiding sugary drinks, is that having a serious impact on daily life?
The judge decided not.
Which is why nut allergies or lactose intolerance are not covered by the Equality Act.
I'm not saying it is right, but that is how things currently stand.
Every case is judged on its merits and type 2 diabetes is not necessarily covered by the Equality Act, not even if we want it to be.
roger wrote:
Doesn't the "Equality Act"say that you have to disregard any drugs or diet for instance,that can help the condition,but have to judge the condition as though no treatment has been taken ?
Yes it does.
If however the "diet" simply consists of avoiding sugary drinks, is that having a serious impact on daily life?
The judge decided not.
Which is why nut allergies or lactose intolerance are not covered by the Equality Act.
I'm not saying it is right, but that is how things currently stand.
Every case is judged on its merits and type 2 diabetes is not necessarily covered by the Equality Act, not even if we want it to be.
NWpostie wrote: at no point did you offer anything constructive in this debate,
I gave you an actual tribunal case where it was decided, in that case, that type 2 diabetes could not be considered a disability under the Equality Act.
How much more constructive do you want?
That was only one case, where the judge made the ruling based on his own experiences, Diabetes affect everybody differently, what may apply in the judges case may not apply to the plaintiff, your debating style was argumentative attacking style.
Which why I couldn't take your comment with all seriousness.
Diabetes affects everybody differently.
That is why type 2 is not necessarily covered by the Equality Act.
Far from being "constructive", your assertion that it is and that this would be an easy win for the union at a tribunal, is puerile nonsense.
I am sorry if you find that argumentative but someone has to tell you.
I couldn't give a toss if you take my comment seriously or not. I am right and you are wrong.
You're right I couldn't give a toss for your comment, especially when you made the absolutist statement "I am right and you're wrong" quite a contrast from your earlier comment accusing of me being absolutist and not accepting 100 shades of grey. also the Judge is wrong to refer to his own experience of Diabetes, when an independent medically qualified Diabetic Doctor can give a qualified judgement on the condition, to do otherwise will leave ground for appeal by either parties to the verdict.
So in my view to paraphrase "I am right and you're wrong"
Six of Nine loves Seven of Nine, together in Electric Dreams.
