some people

[Gerry Acktrich]

Jo

I take it that you had to fill in a application form for the job. Did you declare that you had done modeling in any way.

Also, how did the 2 whistle blowers know that you had done porn ? I would certainly mention double standards to their boss that it's ok for them to watch porn but not to participate. By the way there is a good chance that if the 2 people use computers at work that they will have browsed the net when bored at work so mention this to their boss as well.

You know what they say, " don't get mad, GET EVEN ".

[TheDonkeyWork]

Gerry Acktrich wrote:

> Jo
>
> I take it that you had to fill in a application form for the
> job. Did you declare that you had done modeling in any way.
>
>...
>
>

Why would you have to declare this sort of thing?

It's not like an unspent criminal conviction!! She would only have to declare something like this if specifically asked.

And her employer is pretty much in the clear.

What most people think of as "their contract" is not in fact their contract at all - only a very small piece of it. A contract will be made up of many sources including, a no doubt weighty, staff handbook and a number of terms that arent even written down. You can be assured that there will be a "disrepute" clause in their. Whether that covers actions PRIOR to starting the job is a different matte though.

But... she's still not likely to get much.

You can only bring an unfair dismissal claim if you have 1 yrs service (unless it is a discrimination issue - sex, race, religion, disability etc) - so yes... essentiall yht e employer can do whatever they want.

She might be able to bring a breach of contract claim but that would only allow her to claim to the value of her notice period which aint gonna be a lot of money - 1 weeks pay.

[jimslip]

The problem with the old "I'll see you in court" routine, is that all your employer (Or some other sod) has to do, is make a sneaky call to the NOTW and get your face plastered all over the paper. Any tribunal would then agree that the exposure would and has, harmed the employer's business and so find in their favour.

Unfortunately, the good folk of porn are not in one of the select, "Victim groups" as laid down by the rules of "Political Correctness". Now, if you were in a wheel chair and/ or a lesbian with a live in partner, that would be another matter altogether! If you were to say that you had been exploited by the evil men of porn and fled their clutches to embrace Christianity and only wished to turn your back on your horrific past. Your employer would be ruined!

It's still worth speaking to the Citizens Advice Bureau or a solicitor, who knows, maybe I'm wrong. In theory you should have the same rights to compo as anyone else, I'd love to know what you are advised.

[Billy69]

you know what mate that is the best response to that post everything you say makes so much sence
they needs to be more guys like you in this buisness
take care mate

[Gerry Acktrich]

The reason is quite straight forward. If Jo did fill in a application form it would more than likely have asked about previous employment, in other words paid work.
Now as most of the girls are self employed, which I believe the majority are, Jo could have put self employed model which tells them bugger all really but it does tell them she worked as a model without being specific, but does inform them that Jo has worked as a model in the past and before the offered her the position within the company so they were made aware of this fact by Jo.

If the question about previous employment was asked on the application form and Jo decided not to mention her modeling career then Jo has lied to her employer.

If the question was not asked then Jo should say that she was never asked what work she had done before.

[ExAlexisSilver]

Hi there Josephine, I was working up until a couple of years ago as Alexis Silver.

I'm really sorry to hear what has happened to you and I really do feel for you. I myself have been fired 3 times since February 28th this year because I used to work in the adult industry.

Unfortunately, you don't have any grounds for legal action unless you can find a smaller firm or independant solicitor who wants to take some risks and make some changes.

I cannot believe that this flagrant discrimination is allowed by a government that has no problem taking the tax from the production, retail and consumption of pornographic material.

As for the ridiculous comments relating to working with children, should Samuel Jackson be prevented from ever working with children as he recently portrayed a torturer who was willing to "work" on children? No, of course he shouldn't.

Perhaps users of porn and society in general should start to understand that most of what happens in adult films is acting in the way that mainstream movies contain acting. The fact that legal, consensual sex occurs between adults which then results in an income being earned has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in a person's ability and moral standing in "the real world", baseball bat or no baseball bat.

Josephine, if you would like to contact me please feel free to send me a message (here or via Twitter @Alexis_Silver) I can only offer empathy and solitude but that was enough to get me out of a really very dark emotional state a couple of weeks ago.

[ExAlexisSilver]

Oh, and:

" The only issue I can potentially see would be a public facing role and being recognised, e.g checkout operator, waitress, receptionist at a hotel etc."

So it is ok to demand but not to supply?

By this I mean that one would have to watch porn in order to recognise a porn star so I fail to understand on what grounds this could possibly be a valid reason for prejudice.

Not having a go Sparky, I'm just a bit fed up with the hypocracy of present-day society

[ChantelleFox]

i know you don't know me but i think that is absolutely pathetic people need to grow up !!

[BigDaveNew123]

Josephine,

I have studied abit of employment law and I don't think that you will be able to claim unless your employer has dismissed you on the grounds of being 'automatically unfair'. Automatically unfair falls into a number of categories e.g discrimination (race, gender, disabililty) e.t.c.

You will have the chance to appeal which should give you a chance to understand why they decided to dismiss based on 'bringing the company into disrepute'.

Did you also bring in any representation with you at your meeting and were you notified before your dismissal?

Happy to give you some more tips/advice if you like?

BigDave

[Daz Savage]

Hang on Pronbytes I have to take issue.
Your argument doesn't hold water at all.
You say that it is society that won't want porny-people near their kids but then you say you can't blame them and then immediately say that most people don't have a clue about porn.
So as I understand it you are saying that the people who know the least about a subject should be the people who's point of view society takes as the general rule and we should all abide by that.
To keep the argument alive you keep on mentioning child porn and perverts etc but what the hell has that got to do with this discussion.
Quite simply... one of our ranks has been sacked (as I understand it) from her chosen career for doing what we all know she does - and does well.
I don't give a flying fuck if the rest of the rabble that poses as society in this country decide to freak out about porn, wankers, frotters, felchers, gang-bangers, pervs, freaks, vegetarianism, global-warming, the preservation of pancake day, the rspb, child abusers, skateboarding-dogs on YouTube or the abolition of the fucking human race... unless it is germaine to this subject then it had damn-all business being held up as a reason for making any point whatsoever and smacks of desperation!

And when you make plainly inflammatory remarks in your statement I find it a bit rich to say things like "Whoooaaa there" when someone takes the time to formulate a cogent argument and respond intelligently.

IMFHO