See Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27 the Supreme Court, overturning a decision of the Court of Appeal (and the original employment tribunal) has held that indirect discrimination concerns provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs) which have disparate impact on those with protected characteristics, by comparison with those who lack those characteristics. Differing from the Court of Appeal, the Court held that the reasons why they have that disparate impact is relevant only to the question of justification. Legislation Under s19 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA), indirect discrimination may arise where an apparently neutral PCP puts people who share a protected characteristic at a comparative disadvantage. Put shortly, a claimant has to show that the PCP applied by the respondent :puts persons with whom the claimant shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom the claimant does not share it (s19(2)(b)), and puts the claimant at that disadvantage (s19(2)(c)). If the claimant shows this, he succeeds unless the respondent can show the PCP to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (s19(2)(d)).The question in Essop concerned the meaning of the s19(2)(c) requirement that Mr Essop show he was put ‘at that disadvantage’. Certainly, there is a disadvantage , a significant disadvantage here worth redress. Gender difference would not satisfy any justification when the transgender receive £39,450.00 per year in cash benefits automatically. They can drive trains, buses and do all kinds of work like the other two genders. A transgender needs a woman with a womb to reproduce or a womb machine; and this is also true for men. But this is not justification for such differences in benefits. Some of the research on the UK law is provided from the internet. But, when there are disparities in government policies concerning a general benefit intended to answer economic developments associated with automation, then this is certainly illegal when only one gender of the three is provided with the benefit. This amounts to 1/8 of the population that can traverse the Automation economy without trepidation. The disparity is like a pot hole in the North Circular the size of a FIAT Punto Abarth. It is like an embarrassing incomplete sentence at the beginning of a GCSE essay. Who would tolerate the pot hole? Who would tolerate the incomplete economy or the incomplete sentence? the All of Europe looks in amazement. It is like This is the undisclosed, undiscussed Great stain on the UK Humanity rights record. Only the transgender receive the benefit automatically. It's a violation of UK law, EU law and UN law. Certainly, there was a problem with equal pay for equal work as between men and women and as between the white and the non white. That is still resolving itself. But, the government could not participate with such inequalities when also trying to fight the same. This Angel Ronan ™ discovery is worth the Doctorate. But, in the dichotomy of cultures he has seen that the Aboriginal war has continued and is on going as raised by an aboriginal family in time for a white Aboriginal government. The depth of the problem is that there is still resentment for law by the aboriginal and this is the dichotomy when law is government and government is law; not just position and power. It is amazing how the government has sacked it self during the COVID in breach of court rulings such as Re(B) to the tune of billions in potential judgements under Re(B) and Dorset Yacht vs. Home Secretary. If you say millions have died on the news and this is official government news, then you are responsible for any shock or alarm that has transpired that is also litigious in nature. To provoke law suits while involved the administration of the system is criminal mischief. There is no doubt you have all the power to do this. As such, the law should not be used as a target but as a tool to achieve Aboriginal solutions and answer Aboriginal needs. Money is what the Aboriginal needs although hunting and gathering might be fun. The law graduate, Aboriginal or not, also shouldn't be a target. They help people. You can still hunt and fish even though you have the income support provided automatically to all citizens. At the moment, it is not provided to all citizens since 1951 and this fact is the great stain on the UK Humanity Rights record, It is an Economic ground zero first and foremost that is, in corollary, a human rights issues rather evidently. See Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27 the Supreme Court, overturning a decision of the Court of Appeal (and the original employment tribunal) has held that indirect discrimination concerns provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs) which have disparate impact on those with protected characteristics, by comparison with those who lack those characteristics. Differing from the Court of Appeal, the Court held that the reasons why they have that disparate impact is relevant only to the question of justification. Legislation Under s19 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA), indirect discrimination may arise where an apparently neutral PCP puts people who share a protected characteristic at a comparative disadvantage. Put shortly, a claimant has to show that the PCP applied by the respondent :puts persons with whom the claimant shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom the claimant does not share it (s19(2)(b)), and puts the claimant at that disadvantage (s19(2)(c)). If the claimant shows this, he succeeds unless the respondent can show the PCP to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (s19(2)(d)).The question in Essop concerned the meaning of the s19(2)(c) requirement that Mr Essop show he was put ‘at that disadvantage’. Certainly, there is a disadvantage , a significant disadvantage here worth redress. Gender difference would not satisfy any justification when the transgender receive £39,450.00 per year in cash benefits automatically. They can drive trains, buses and do all kinds of work like the other two genders. A transgender needs a woman with a womb to reproduce or a womb machine; and this is also true for men. But this is not justification for such differences in benefits. Some of the research on the UK law is provided from the internet. There is always disparity in the three gender reality, physically speaking. All can speak in tongues or become reprobate, watching sex movies. All can repent according to 1st John 1:9. All can receive salvation under Romans 7 and Romans 8. We can all eat McDonald's. 😁 We cannot hide from this. There are three genders. Two genders rely on the gender with the womb to procreate. There is disparity in education also sometimes but that is by personal choice usually. But, when there are disparities in government policies concerning a general benefit intended to answer economic developments associated with automation, then this is certainly illegal and is the undisclosed, undiscussed Great stain on the UK Humanity rights record. Only the transgender receive the benefit automatically. It's a violation of UK law, EU law and UN law. Certainly, there was a problem with equal pay for equal work as between men and women and as between the white and the non white. That is still resolving itself. But, the government could not participate with such inequalities when also trying to fight the same. This Angel Ronan ™ discovery is worth the Doctorate. When people use their benefits to Finance the obstruction of justice or to pervert the course of justice, then we have contempt of court when they pay court clerks or officers to change the court records or the court information. The Court clerk has the money or that officer who is charged with Obstruct Justice and for taking bribes.😃 When people have the money to go to school and choose not to, then maybe they have money but they have also chosen to fund their own emotional poverty and it's all my fault when they live for nothing but their ego yet their ego should be content as they have gotten all they have bargained for with their Antoinette Arthers Republican Army. She has asked for the death of tube employees who caution her and they are dead. There is something wrong.😄

 See Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27 the Supreme Court, overturning a decision of the Court of Appeal (and the original employment tribunal) has held that indirect discrimination concerns provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs) which have disparate impact on those with protected characteristics, by comparison with those who lack those characteristics. Differing from the Court of Appeal, the Court held that the reasons why they have that disparate impact is relevant only to the question of justification. 

Legislation

Under s19 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA), indirect discrimination may arise where an apparently neutral PCP puts people who share a protected characteristic at a comparative disadvantage. Put shortly, a claimant has to show that the PCP applied by the respondent :puts persons with whom the claimant shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom the claimant does not share it (s19(2)(b)), and puts the claimant at that disadvantage (s19(2)(c)). If the claimant shows this, he succeeds unless the respondent can show the PCP to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (s19(2)(d)).The question in Essop concerned the meaning of the s19(2)(c) requirement that Mr Essop show he was put ‘at that disadvantage’. Certainly, there is a disadvantage , a significant disadvantage here worth redress.  Gender difference would not satisfy any justification when the transgender receive £39,450.00 per year in cash benefits automatically. They can drive trains, buses and do all kinds of work like the other two  genders.  A transgender needs a woman with a womb to reproduce or a womb machine; and this is also true for men. But this is not justification for such differences in benefits.  Some of the research on the UK law is provided from the internet.  

But, when there are disparities in government policies concerning a general benefit intended to answer economic developments associated with automation, then this is certainly illegal when only one gender of the three is provided with the benefit. This amounts to 1/8 of the population that can traverse the Automation economy without trepidation.  The disparity is like a pot hole in the North Circular the size of a FIAT Punto Abarth.  It is like an embarrassing incomplete sentence at the beginning of a GCSE essay.  Who would tolerate the pot hole? Who would tolerate the incomplete economy or the incomplete sentence?   the All of Europe looks in amazement.   It is like  This is the undisclosed, undiscussed Great stain  on the UK Humanity rights record.  Only the transgender receive the benefit automatically.  It's a violation of UK law, EU law and UN law.  Certainly, there was a problem  with equal pay for equal work as between men and women and as between the white and the non white. That is still resolving itself. But, the government could not participate with such inequalities when also trying to fight the same. This Angel Ronan ™  discovery is worth the Doctorate. 

But, in the dichotomy of cultures he has seen that the Aboriginal war has continued and is on going as raised by an aboriginal family in time for a white Aboriginal government. The depth of the problem is that there is still resentment for law  by the aboriginal and this is the dichotomy when law is government and government is law; not just position and power. It is amazing how the government has sacked it self during the COVID in breach of court rulings such as Re(B) to the tune of billions in potential judgements under Re(B) and Dorset Yacht vs.  Home Secretary.  If you say millions have died on the news and this is official government news, then you are responsible for any shock or alarm that has transpired that is also litigious in nature.  To provoke law suits while involved the  administration of the system is criminal mischief.  There is no doubt you have all the power to do this. 

As such, the law should  not be used as a  target but as a tool to achieve Aboriginal solutions and answer Aboriginal needs. Money is what the Aboriginal needs although hunting and gathering might be fun.   The law graduate, Aboriginal or not, also shouldn't be a target.  They help people. 

 You can still hunt and fish even though you have the income support provided automatically to all citizens. At the moment, it is not provided to all citizens since 1951 and this fact is the great stain on the UK Humanity Rights record, It is an Economic ground zero first and foremost that is, in corollary, a human rights issues rather evidently.  

See Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27 the Supreme Court, overturning a decision of the Court of Appeal (and the original employment tribunal) has held that indirect discrimination concerns provisions, criteria or practices (PCPs) which have disparate impact on those with protected characteristics, by comparison with those who lack those characteristics. Differing from the Court of Appeal, the Court held that the reasons why they have that disparate impact is relevant only to the question of justification.

Legislation

Under s19 of the Equality Act 2010 (EA), indirect discrimination may arise where an apparently neutral PCP puts people who share a protected characteristic at a comparative disadvantage. Put shortly, a claimant has to show that the PCP applied by the respondent :puts persons with whom the claimant shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom the claimant does not share it (s19(2)(b)), and puts the claimant at that disadvantage (s19(2)(c)). If the claimant shows this, he succeeds unless the respondent can show the PCP to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (s19(2)(d)).The question in Essop concerned the meaning of the s19(2)(c) requirement that Mr Essop show he was put ‘at that disadvantage’. Certainly, there is a disadvantage , a significant disadvantage here worth redress.  Gender difference would not satisfy any justification when the transgender receive £39,450.00 per year in cash benefits automatically. They can drive trains, buses and do all kinds of work like the other two  genders.  A transgender needs a woman with a womb to reproduce or a womb machine; and this is also true for men. But this is not justification for such differences in benefits.  Some of the research on the UK law is provided from the internet.  

There is always disparity in the three gender reality,  physically speaking. All can speak in tongues or become reprobate, watching sex movies. All can repent according to 1st John 1:9.  All can receive salvation under Romans 7 and Romans 8. We can all eat McDonald's.  😁  We cannot hide from this. There are three genders. Two genders rely on the gender with the womb to procreate.     There is disparity in education also sometimes but that is by  personal choice usually. But, when there are disparities in government policies concerning a general benefit intended to answer economic developments associated with automation, then this is certainly illegal and  is the undisclosed, undiscussed Great stain  on the UK Humanity rights record.  Only the transgender receive the benefit automatically.  It's a violation of UK law, EU law and UN law.  Certainly, there was a problem  with equal pay for equal work as between men and women and as between the white and the non white. That is still resolving itself. But, the government could not participate with such inequalities when also trying to fight the same. This Angel Ronan ™  discovery is worth the Doctorate. 

When people use their benefits to Finance the obstruction of justice or to pervert the course of justice, then we have contempt of court when they pay court clerks or officers to change the court records or the court information. The Court clerk has the money or that officer who is charged with Obstruct Justice and for taking bribes.😃  

When people have the money to go to school and choose not to, then maybe they have money but they have also chosen to fund their own emotional poverty and it's all my fault when they live for nothing but their ego yet their ego should be content as they have gotten all they have bargained for with their Antoinette Arthers Republican Army. She has asked for the death of tube employees who caution her and they are dead. There is something wrong.😄