Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Search Actuarial Jobs by State @ DWSimpson.com:
AL AK AR AZ CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA
ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NH NJ NM NY NV NC ND
OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY

General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121  
Old 06-22-2018, 09:38 AM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 115
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GargoyleWaiting View Post
... a number of assumptions, allegations and unwarranted conclusions. To the extent that I can't take his views at face value, and will only be persuaded by facts.
Again I repeat that you have been presented with particulars of claim, for which the Claimant would need to prove facts with evidence. The actual evidence is provided to Court separately in a file called the bundle. Also witness statements would be provided that make references to materials in that bundle.
  #122  
Old 06-22-2018, 09:43 AM
Dr. Claw's Avatar
Dr. Claw Dr. Claw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 133
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almost_there View Post
Again I repeat that you have been presented with particulars of claim, for which the Claimant would need to prove facts with evidence. The actual evidence is provided to Court separately in a file called the bundle. Also witness statements would be provided that make references to materials in that bundle.
Have the courts ruled that the facts are compelling?
Is that bundle available for distribution?
Why should we take those particulars of claim as fact without seeing evidence? Can you provide evidence?
__________________
I'll get you next time, Gadget!!
  #123  
Old 06-22-2018, 09:44 AM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 115
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GargoyleWaiting View Post
Taking out the unwarranted conclusion, I think I've summarised what we know fairly.
Given that you admit of not being in possession of facts then you cannot with any credibility allege an unwarranted conclusion.
  #124  
Old 06-22-2018, 09:46 AM
GargoyleWaiting's Avatar
GargoyleWaiting GargoyleWaiting is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Favorite beer: the closest one
Posts: 6,763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almost_there View Post
Again I repeat that you have been presented with particulars of claim, for which the Claimant would need to prove facts with evidence. The actual evidence is provided to Court separately in a file called the bundle. Also witness statements would be provided that make references to materials in that bundle.
And none of the examples I gave could possibly be backed up with evidence, because they are opinion and conjecture.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFActuary View Post
But the mosquitoes in New Brunswick Bay of Fundy did mess with my understanding of some limited loss functions
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the North View Post
Excel gave me #VALUE.

Edit: Nevermind, I was linking a sumif and didn't open the linked spreadsheet. It is now giving me #N/A.
  #125  
Old 06-22-2018, 09:48 AM
GargoyleWaiting's Avatar
GargoyleWaiting GargoyleWaiting is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Favorite beer: the closest one
Posts: 6,763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almost_there View Post
Given that you admit of not being in possession of facts then you cannot with any credibility allege an unwarranted conclusion.
Then. Give. Us. The. Facts.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFActuary View Post
But the mosquitoes in New Brunswick Bay of Fundy did mess with my understanding of some limited loss functions
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the North View Post
Excel gave me #VALUE.

Edit: Nevermind, I was linking a sumif and didn't open the linked spreadsheet. It is now giving me #N/A.
  #126  
Old 06-22-2018, 10:02 AM
almost_there almost_there is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 115
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GargoyleWaiting View Post
Then. Give. Us. The. Facts.
Look I understand you don't like being corrected several times already in this thread but I hope you found it educational.

I don't see why you're so concerned about being personally presented with facts that support the particular of claims - that is for the Claimant to present to Court.

Perhaps you can specify for us the credentials you have for making a legal determination on whether the Claimant was victimised or not? In your own time please.
  #127  
Old 06-22-2018, 10:04 AM
actuaryleaks101 actuaryleaks101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
College: Imperial
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Claw View Post
Have the courts ruled that the facts are compelling?
Is that bundle available for distribution?
Why should we take those particulars of claim as fact without seeing evidence? Can you provide evidence?
Hi Dr Claw and others...
I am sure the Bundle the judgement will emerge in due course.
I respectfully ask people to keep an open mind about this.
People generally do not admit guilt for discrimination or victimization. They are found guilty by the judge.

I will leave you with the following to help bring the discussion back on track:

Very little discrimination today is overt or deliberate
Anya v University of Oxford [2001] IRLR 377

Witnesses can be unconsciously prejudiced
Swiggs v Nagarajan [1999] IRLR 572 HL

The investigating officer should remember that direct evidence of discrimination is rarely available. The necessary evidence will usually depend on what influence it is proper to draw from the primary facts.
In other words the tribunal will look for clues and draw conclusions.
King v Great Britain China centre [1991] IRLR 513

The investigating officer should find primary facts about all incidents and then look at the totality of the facts, including the respondentís individual explanations in order to decide whether the acts complained of were because of a protected characteristics. By adopting a fragmented approach it 'would inevitably have the effect of diminishing any eloquence that the cumulative effect of the primary facts might have' as to whether the actions were because of the protected characteristic.
Qureshi v (1) Victoria University of Manchester & (2) Brazier EAT/484/95
Anya v University of Oxford [2001] IRLR 377
  #128  
Old 06-22-2018, 10:05 AM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,660
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO View Post
Being sued does not prove that someone is guilty. I am another of those waiting for more information to hear what the court rules.
IFMP
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Nov. 20, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Actuario View Post
Therapists should ask the right questions, not give the right answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
  #129  
Old 06-22-2018, 10:06 AM
Marcie's Avatar
Marcie Marcie is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almost_there View Post
You misunderstand.

A document has been presented. I read it very carefully. Others clearly have not and have proceeded to make a series of ignorant comments about it, which shows they haven't read it carefully. In addition they have made inaccurate statements with regards to legislation. I'm providing corrections, mindful that I am not here to spoon feed or push my own opinions, hence inviting them to think for themselves.
What are you here for, if not to "push [your] own opinions"? What were your goals with this thread? Do you feel like you are accomplishing those goals? Why or why not?
  #130  
Old 06-22-2018, 10:07 AM
GargoyleWaiting's Avatar
GargoyleWaiting GargoyleWaiting is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Favorite beer: the closest one
Posts: 6,763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by almost_there View Post
Look I understand you don't like being corrected several times already in this thread but I hope you found it educational.

I don't see why you're so concerned about being personally presented with facts that support the particular of claims - that is for the Claimant to present to Court.

Perhaps you can specify for us the credentials you have for making a legal determination on whether the Claimant was victimised or not? In your own time please.
JFC

I just wanted to decide whether I should believe this or not. I thought the purpose of this thread was to alert people to grevious wrong doing by the IFoA. If we are not allowed to question the case, then I don't see the point in this thread.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFActuary View Post
But the mosquitoes in New Brunswick Bay of Fundy did mess with my understanding of some limited loss functions
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the North View Post
Excel gave me #VALUE.

Edit: Nevermind, I was linking a sumif and didn't open the linked spreadsheet. It is now giving me #N/A.
Closed Thread

Tags
acted, britain, ehrc, ifoa, racism, victimisation

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.47050 seconds with 9 queries