Evolution to blame for joint pain

[Jack Knave]

Not all. There are some jobs which have legislative restrictions I believe. But generally speaking, yes.

This is what I thought.

[Nearly Sane]

But my reply wasn't there with that lot in your post so I don't know what you are referring to and I'm not searching back in the thread to find it. So you either furnish me with what I said, including the #number, or decease with this farce.

Reply #27 from Harrowby Hall, your reply to him #29 and my reply to you #30. It's all there. 

[Jack Knave]

Reply #27 from Harrowby Hall, your reply to him #29 and my reply to you #30. It's all there.

So again, what is wrong? My statement is true, not all employees can afford the legal fees to take their employers to a tribunal.

[Nearly Sane]

So again, what is wrong? My statement is true, not all employees can afford the legal fees to take their employers to a tribunal.

it's essentially an irrelevant non sequitur to HH's post and Hope's statement as I said in #30

[Jack Knave]

it's essentially an irrelevant non sequitur to HH's post and Hope's statement as I said in #30

It wasn't a conclusion but a statement of fact that though the option to take the employer to a tribunal is technical there it is not always open to the employee for reasons given. It is called contributing to the discussion. You're a pedantic fellow.

[jeremyp]

Sorry, HH, the main folk wearing them are women working in companies - such as the finance and insurance world - who have been told they have to wear them by their bosses, or risk losing their jobs.

No. That's not true. Very few companies have policies that say women must wear high heels. In fact, I'd be surprised if any do now.

[Nearly Sane]

No. That's not true. Very few companies have policies that say women must wear high heels. In fact, I'd be surprised if any do now.

it's OK, jeremyp, when asked about it, Hope cited the one much publicised case but no more. So as in classic Hope argument rules, that"s more than enough as a justification.

[jeremyp]

it's OK, jeremyp, when asked about it, Hope cited the one much publicised case but no more. So as in classic Hope argument rules, that"s more than enough as a justification.

I posted my comment immediately after reading Hope's post but before reading all the responses. I could have deleted it, but I couldn't be arsed.