Potential claims against the UK profession(s)

[chenbod]

Applying to do what kind of volunteering exactly?

Since 2000, how many volunteers have managed to stop the IFoA's dodgy agreement with the IAI?? None!!!!
It took a disgruntled student to do it and well done to him

 

[chenbod]

You previously mocked the appeal of this story, didn't you mr proud... well it can no longer be suppressed even if IFoA don't want to tell their own members what's happened.

It looks like some of their members have commented on the Daily Mail story.... Some very interesting comments.

 

[chenbod]

This is how to bring a discrimination complaint against the IFoA

Here is the link to get the ball rolling.
https://tell.acas.org.uk/find-a-solution-to-your-employment-dispute

Once you have completed the online form, you have have started the formal statutory process.
You dont have to just name the IFoA, you can name individuals in the IFoA for taking part in it.
You then have to lodge your claim form (called ET1)

Contrary to what certain party poopers are saying, it is free to lodge a claim.

The claim must be for discrimination or harassment on a protected ground and / or victimisation for doing a protected act.

For those that are interested, I suggest that you look at S.13, S.19, S.53, S.54 & S.57 of the Equality Act along with the explanatory notes.

Equality Act: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/data.pdf

Explanatory notes: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/data.pdf

If you require help with writing your ET1, please put your questions below or PM me

 

[almost_there]

It looks like some of their members have commented on the Daily Mail story.... Some very interesting comments.

The second highest ranking comment is "Good decision". 996 likes, 15 dislikes. It appears Proud actuary and his friends are in a very small minority.

 

[ProudActuary]

It looks like some of their members have commented on the Daily Mail story.... Some very interesting comments.

Indeed - some very interesting comments from both sides of the argument both for and against the claimant, Chenbod/Whistleblower.

Do you think the ones which don't support the claimant are rational comments or do you think they are all Acted/IFoA employees posting under aliases? Perhaps null will ask them if they are affiliated to any organisation... similar to what he does on here any time posters raise points against him.

 

[ProudActuary]

But for the thousands of students that were disadvantaged by the changes, they’ll end up having more study hours since they have to repeat examinations. It’s not possible to just do a minimum of 125-150 one CT. You have to now do a minimum of 200-250. And if you fail, which you most likely will, you have to do it all over again which will increase study time.

The changes were brought in with 2 years' notice. The claimant in this case graduated in 2000. According to the judgment the claimant failed CT4 twice in consecutive sittings and then couldn't sit the exams in 2018 due to legal action. Whistleblower (or whatever is his/her alias is these days) has stated that the ET has to be taken 3 months after the act of discrimination?

If, as the Daily Mail article states, it was your dream to be an actuary (I stated this previously and you said I was being offensive and rude, I am not, I am just quoting from the article) why not focus on sitting exams to avoid the new changes and litigate immediately after the final sitting in 2018? You are trying to suggest you've been discriminated against by only having 2 chances a year to sit an exam and would have liked 4, then complain about a new curriculum resulting in an increase in exams. You are contradicting yourself completely when you make such arguments. The fact is that you decided to not sit any exams in 2018 to pursue legal action and then complain that you have been affected by the changes.

I feel for those people who have lost out on CT passes, I know many at my company who have. They have been annoyed but they have rolled their sleeves up, worked hard and got on with preparing for exams. Hopefully their success will be on results day. Your success has been in court. I wish you well if you decide to sit your remaining exams but you really can't credibly:

- complain about a new curriculum increasing number of exams whilst arguing about not getting 4 exam sittings a year rather than 2 (only benefit of this, as you state, would be resits so you could double number of exams for each subject if you sat IFoA then IAI exams)
- complain about changes to curriculum which have adversely affected you because you chose not to sit any exams in a year knowing the upcoming changes.

 

[ProudActuary]

The second highest ranking comment is "Good decision". 996 likes, 15 dislikes. It appears Proud actuary and his friends are in a very small minority.

Definitely - I always assess how mainstream/well supported my views are by looking up Daily Mail articles on topics I have an opinion on, find the second highest ranked comment on that article and assess the validity of my views relative to this.

Why go for 2nd highest rated comment? Was the highest rated comment something less supportive of the claimant?

 

[chenbod]

BTW Proud, have a look at the links in post 66. It shows you how to lodge a claim against the IFOA. The links to the equality act explanatory notes explain why certain types of claims can and cannot be brought... I hope this helps.
Hopefully one day you too will exercise your statutory rights enshrined in legislation

 

[almost_there]

... why not focus on sitting exams to avoid the new changes and litigate immediately after the final sitting in 2018?

One has to bring an ET claim within 3 months...

 

[Null]

The changes were brought in with 2 years' notice. The claimant in this case graduated in 2000. According to the judgment the claimant failed CT4 twice in consecutive sittings and then couldn't sit the exams in 2018 due to legal action. Whistleblower (or whatever is his/her alias is these days) has stated that the ET has to be taken 3 months after the act of discrimination?

If, as the Daily Mail article states, it was your dream to be an actuary (I stated this previously and you said I was being offensive and rude, I am not, I am just quoting from the article) why not focus on sitting exams to avoid the new changes and litigate immediately after the final sitting in 2018? You are trying to suggest you've been discriminated against by only having 2 chances a year to sit an exam and would have liked 4, then complain about a new curriculum resulting in an increase in exams. You are contradicting yourself completely when you make such arguments. The fact is that you decided to not sit any exams in 2018 to pursue legal action and then complain that you have been affected by the changes.

I feel for those people who have lost out on CT passes, I know many at my company who have. They have been annoyed but they have rolled their sleeves up, worked hard and got on with preparing for exams. Hopefully their success will be on results day. Your success has been in court. I wish you well if you decide to sit your remaining exams but you really can't credibly:

- complain about a new curriculum increasing number of exams whilst arguing about not getting 4 exam sittings a year rather than 2 (only benefit of this, as you state, would be resits so you could double number of exams for each subject if you sat IFoA then IAI exams)
- complain about changes to curriculum which have adversely affected you because you chose not to sit any exams in a year knowing the upcoming changes.

They didn’t give two years notice. Firstly, prior to communication they clearly told stakeholders that no one would be disadvantaged. They have lied.

In their first of god knows how many releases on the new curriculum they also said that no one would be disadvantaged. They didn’t finalize their curriculum 2019 arrangements until the 3 sitting of the transition period. They had to doctor their communication document several times and they didn’t say sorry we made a mistake rather like now when they have been done for discrimination and they are carrying on like nothing has happened. So stop changing the subject.

Heads are going to roll. There are already questions being asked that make the future of the profession and those that run it very uncertain...

 

[Null]

Definitely - I always assess how mainstream/well supported my views are by looking up Daily Mail articles on topics I have an opinion on, find the second highest ranked comment on that article and assess the validity of my views relative to this.

Why go for 2nd highest rated comment? Was the highest rated comment something less supportive of the claimant?

Should I go and find IFoA propaganda boasting about 3 year qualification times and quote that back to you? Is that the media I should believe? Why is the judgment not in the actuary? Why are the IFoA still discriminating? Ask those questions instead of wasting my time.

 

[almost_there]

I feel for those people who have lost out on CT passes, I know many at my company who have. They have been annoyed but they have rolled their sleeves up, worked hard and got on with preparing for exams.

That's exactly why IFoA have got away with this kind of thing for so long and British actuaries don't qualify in the short times with low dropout rates as we see on the continent.

 

[almost_there]

Why is the judgment not in the actuary? Why are the IFoA still discriminating? Ask those questions instead of wasting my time. You don’t have long left anyway

Exactly. Not in the actuary magazine for the same reasons they never report on what goes on at the Actuarial Association of Europe, such as that the Greeks don't have an economics exam but IFoA consider their qualification just as good as Fellowship & trade it. IFoA have a major transparency problem going back decades. What kind of an organisation doesn't even have a log of complaints or give a reference number? £400k for a CEO that runs things in this manner, what a rip-off!

 

[ProudActuary]

Should I go and find IFoA propaganda boasting about 3 year qualification times and quote that back to you? Is that the media I should believe? Why is the judgment not in the actuary? Why are the IFoA still discriminating? Ask those questions instead of wasting my time. You don’t have long left anyway

I don't think that really answers any of the points I'd asked/raised in my other post about your contradictions. The whole point of forums should be to discuss and debate but you/almost_there and (whistleblower or whatever) aren't interested in debating. Any time anyone raises a legitimate point to any of you they are accused of being IFoA/Acted staff or having some sort of ulterior motive. Just try for a second to take a step back and look at some of the posts on here - do you really think that everyone is out to get you? Or the IFoA/Acted have some conspiracy against you? Perhaps it really is normal people like me who just challenge some of your points because we disagree with them.

Take a rational step back, I have debated with you (or tried to debate) over several threads. Other posters have tried to do the same thing. If it were an attempt to shut you down then the worst thing anybody could do is raise a legitimate point as this just seems to quell further irrational responses from you, almost_there et al.

You stated that I "don't have long left anyway" - I am not interested in continuing discussions with someone who is threatening violence against me.

I really don't know what it is you are trying to achieve, you seem to have a vendetta against the IFoA/Acted. I hope that you gain a sense of perspective on things. You said that I was the one wasting your time, perhaps you should consider whether being an avid poster on here really is the best use of yours.

Feel free to post all the "IFoA propaganda" you want. I'm sure almost_there, whistleblower/chenbod will give you likes and congratulate you on a job well done. I hope that recognition gives you satisfaction and is fulfilling for you.

I won't be posting again as it's clear you have no interest in offering a rational response to any valid points and prefer to make sensationalist comments. Just restrict your propoganda and outlandish remarks to this thread please - no need to spam other ones like you have done in the past.

 

[almost_there]

... you really can't credibly:

- complain about a new curriculum increasing number of exams whilst arguing about not getting 4 exam sittings a year rather than 2 (only benefit of this, as you state, would be resits so you could double number of exams for each subject if you sat IFoA then IAI exams)
- complain about changes to curriculum which have adversely affected you because you chose not to sit any exams in a year knowing the upcoming changes.

Of course he can! Indian actuaries have had 4 opportunities for years, he's only had 2. Everyone would progress quicker with 4 rather than 2. This is what you are still trying to argue against. You are still pursuing a failed, unintelligent, IFoA argument that was rejected in Court and is laughed at by the public.

 

[chenbod]

I don't think that really answers any of the points I'd asked/raised in my other post about your contradictions. The whole point of forums should be to discuss and debate but you/almost_there and (whistleblower or whatever) aren't interested in debating.

Perhaps you should have debated with the judge if you think your arguments have more teeth than the IFOA Barrister

 

[chenbod]

I don't think that really answers any of the points I'd asked/raised in my other post about your contradictions. The whole point of forums should be to discuss and debate but you/almost_there and (whistleblower or whatever) aren't interested in debating. Any time anyone raises a legitimate point to any of you they are accused of being IFoA/Acted staff or having some sort of ulterior motive. Just try for a second to take a step back and look at some of the posts on here - do you really think that everyone is out to get you? Or the IFoA/Acted have some conspiracy against you? Perhaps it really is normal people like me who just challenge some of your points because we disagree with them.

Take a rational step back, I have debated with you (or tried to debate) over several threads. Other posters have tried to do the same thing. If it were an attempt to shut you down then the worst thing anybody could do is raise a legitimate point as this just seems to quell further irrational responses from you, almost_there et al.

You stated that I "don't have long left anyway" - I am not interested in continuing discussions with someone who is threatening violence against me.

I really don't know what it is you are trying to achieve, you seem to have a vendetta against the IFoA/Acted. I hope that you gain a sense of perspective on things. You said that I was the one wasting your time, perhaps you should consider whether being an avid poster on here really is the best use of yours.

Feel free to post all the "IFoA propaganda" you want. I'm sure almost_there, whistleblower/chenbod will give you likes and congratulate you on a job well done. I hope that recognition gives you satisfaction and is fulfilling for you.

I won't be posting again as it's clear you have no interest in offering a rational response to any valid points and prefer to make sensationalist comments. Just restrict your propoganda and outlandish remarks to this thread please - no need to spam other ones like you have done in the past.

Cutting to the chase, do you think the IFoA should have won, despite having an agreement with the IAI that treats Indian nationals more favourably? [Y/N]?

 

[ProudActuary]

Of course he can! Indian actuaries have had 4 opportunities for years, he's only had 2. Everyone would progress quicker with 4 rather than 2. This is what you are still trying to argue against. You are still pursuing a failed, unintelligent, IFoA argument that was rejected in Court and is laughed at by the public.

So null complains about the 2019 changes and how they have increases the number of exams he is sitting. He is complaining that he will have to sit more exams when he complains about this. He then moans about only have two sittings a year rather than 4. These are contradictory arguments!

 

[ProudActuary]

You are still pursuing a failed, unintelligent, IFoA argument that was rejected in Court and is laughed at by the public.

Now, now almost_there. We've already had a discussion regarding points in court having merit v failing. For example, the rationale put forward in the 2017 case appears to me to be "failed, unintelligent" and the court agreed in that these claims FAILED however the claimant disagreed presumably when he pursued this action and is entitled to his opinion. Even if some his actions in that case really called in to question his professionalism.

 

[almost_there]

ProudActuary is a bit out-of-date. The 2019 case revealed IFoA should have traded Associateship with the Europeans not Fellowship. This was not disclosed in the 2017 case and in retrospect all can now see those complaints were spot on. That's why that case is being revisited by the Court. We are subject to a harder route. Everyone in the profession knows this.

 

[almost_there]

Cutting to the chase, do you think the IFoA should have won, despite having an agreement with the IAI that treats Indian nationals more favourably? [Y/N]?

I don't think Proudactuary will answer this. He is clearly furious about the result. This is not the normal view of someone who is merely a bystander. The public think it's a good decision by 99.85% to 0.15%.