Judgment Day

[ProudActuary]

What is the “small” new development? That a international newspaper widely read by senior business executives and politicians around the world has picked this case up and will not have a dim view of the IFoA?

Newspaper reports a news story - hardly earth shattering!

 

[ProudActuary]

Ace123, members should oppose any more money spent on this by IFoA at the Courts. They had every opportunity to sort this out for many years. They should sort out their arrangements and put an end to unfairness and discrimination. Every man and his dog know this situation stinks.

If an individual or body feels that a point of law has been incorrectly applied then they are perfectly entitled to appeal that judgment. It's wrong to suggest that an organisation shouldn't be able to launch a defence.

Indeed, if the appeal fails then the adverse judgment has even more of a negative impact as there'll likely be additional news coverage and such like.

 

[almost_there]

All this bad publicity the IFoA could have avoided by taking correct steps to eliminate the discrimination when it was brought to their attention. This matter didn't need to go to Court at all. They've spent all this money trying to fight it in Court rather than fixing the problem. People running IFoA have handled this entire situation appallingly.

 

[almost_there]

It's very clear Proud "Actuary" wants the current discriminatory arrangements to continue. Business as usual. Members shouldn't fund an appeal to try and save the jobs and reputation of the IFoA bosses who have brought the profession into such disrepute.

 

[Null]

If an individual or body feels that a point of law has been incorrectly applied then they are perfectly entitled to appeal that judgment. It's wrong to suggest that an organisation shouldn't be able to launch a defence.

Indeed, if the appeal fails then the adverse judgment has even more of a negative impact as there'll likely be additional news coverage and such like.

In this case, Indian people get 4 chances to pass exams, British people get 2. What is so difficult to understand? 2 does not equal 4 as you seem to struggle with too. Why was the claim even defended? Members should be asking questions on how much of their money was flushed down the drain on this exercise

 

[ProudActuary]

It's very clear Proud "Actuary" wants the current discriminatory arrangements to continue. Business as usual. Members shouldn't fund an appeal to try and save the jobs and reputation of the IFoA bosses who have brought the profession into such disrepute.

What's the use of speech marks all about? Are you suggesting people should be sacked without the opportunity to defend themselves? That seems discriminatory and unfair to me.

 

[Null]

I don't find their university exemption program fair too. I wonder seeing the number of universities on IFOA's website that why I spent years writing exams from IFoA when I could do masters and get exemptions.

US's Actuarial society (SOA) does not give exemptions through any of the university programs. If IFOA will keep adding universities like this, I fear losing importance in the global market.

This claim is next to be heard. If you would like to join, please get in touch by private message

 

[Null]

I would also like to point out the discrimination case involving the bakery in Northern Ireland - multiple courts found that their behavior mounted to discrimination - yet the owners of the bakery continued to appeal it, as was their right, and they were vindicated when the highest court in the UK found that they did not discriminate. What is stopping the IFoA from appealing the decision for instance?

This is repetition. I’ve heard it all before. Why has Acted not banned this person and deleted this post?

 

[almost_there]

ProudActuary - IFoA had the opportunity to defend themselves in Court. They lost. Their Chief Executive could have put himself forward as a witness but didn't. Nor did their Director of Education. They couldn't find a single actuary prepared to testify in their favour. Go and find out how much IFoA spent on this failed defence please.

 

[Null]

What's the use of speech marks all about? Are you suggesting people should be sacked without the opportunity to defend themselves? That seems discriminatory and unfair to me.

What is discriminatory about it? Did almost there say they should be sacked because they were British nationals?

 

[ProudActuary]

This is repetition. I’ve heard it all before. Why has Acted not banned this person and deleted this post?

Are you being serious?

 

[ProudActuary]

This claim is next to be heard. If you would like to join, please get in touch by private message

How much could this cost? You've previously made mention of the personal expense without giving any figures. People should be fully informed before you encourage them to take court action... which is extreme rather than a standard "go to" to solve a problem or issue.

 

[almost_there]

How much could this cost? You've previously made mention of the personal expense without giving any figures. People should be fully informed before you encourage them to take court action... which is extreme rather than a standard "go to" to solve a problem or issue.

IFoA shouldn't be run in such a manner such that complaints have to go to Court. You appear to disagree.

 

[Null]

I’m not here to provide legal advice. You?

 

[ProudActuary]

IFoA shouldn't be run in such a manner such that complaints have to go to Court. You appear to disagree.

My last comment is the anithesis of this. You seem to suggest that any "wrong" should be escalated to court action straight away. Pretty sure the IFoA has a complaints process, perhaps try that as a starting point!

 

[almost_there]

You seem to suggest that any "wrong" should be escalated to court action straight away. Pretty sure the IFoA has a complaints process, perhaps try that as a starting point!

No one has done that. No it's not in the remit of their complaints process. Imagine if everyone in society had that attitude "if you don't like it, leave or take us to Court".

 

[ProudActuary]

No one has done that. No it's not in the remit of their complaints process. Imagine if everyone in society had that attitude "if you don't like it, leave or take us to Court".

Where did I suggest you leave? I said there's a complaints process that you could follow rather than advising everyone and their dog to take the IFoA to court any time they have a grievance.

 

[almost_there]

I said there's a complaints process that you could follow rather than advising everyone and their dog to take the IFoA to court any time they have a grievance.

There isn't one for member complaints about discrimination. Go and ask Mr Cribb why not.

 

[whistleblower21]

I would also like to point out the discrimination case involving the bakery in Northern Ireland - multiple courts found that their behavior mounted to discrimination - yet the owners of the bakery continued to appeal it, as was their right, and they were vindicated when the highest court in the UK found that they did not discriminate. What is stopping the IFoA from appealing the decision for instance?

The thing stopping the IFOA from appealing the decision is that they can only appeal on a point of law. i.e where there is an error in law.
They cannot appeal based on feelings. Moreover, they cannot appeal on the grounds that they believe that they should have the right to unlawfully discriminate. Keep in mind, that the court didn't just find in the victims favour for direct and indirect discrimination, they also found that the IFOA instructed and aided another body to discriminate against the victim and others because they were British nationals. That is an impossible hurdle to jump over on appeal.

 

[Null]

How can it be that judgment day is not a hot thread? After Actuarial sheep it’s the best one out there...

 

[almost_there]

Even if some technical appeal point exists that could succeed, which I seriously doubt, not least as hardly no appeals succeed, the facts found by the Tribunal about IFoA's conduct are absolutely scandalous. They would not be exonerated whatsoever. They did nothing to address the situation for many years. All of this conduct carried out with your money, in your name, actuaries... it's nothing to be proud of, proudactuary.