Mugged by the Constitution

Another blinding failure, Jonathan? You are racking them up, aren't you?

A certain communal organisation to which I belong (no names, no pack drill) seems to be run as a personal fiefdom by an oligarchy - well, a duogarchy (is that a word?) really - of elderly men.
They have yet to be dragged into the 20th, let alone 21st century, where "ladies" are concerned; there are none in executive positions. Indeed, I fear that the old gentlemen concerned have either intimations of immortality, or are saying “Après nous, le déluge”.
Nevertheless, although such a gerontocracy is to be deplored, for its stifling of new talent and failure to groom younger successors, I feel that a mix of age groups is right and proper - it was Bismarck who made 65 the arbitrary retirement date, and the Board's 72 is some concession to the fact that we are living longer. But so long as people are still in possession of their faculties, they should be valued and utilised whatver their chronological age, and not undervalued as redundant and useless.
So, bravo for sticking up for justice, Jonathan!
Age discrimination is in many ways the last socially acceptable one. And one, Gordon, that will affect all of us, potentially!

The next elections for which this is relevant are in 2012 - so what is the hurry? No doubt the President considered there to be more pressing issues facing the community than a Constitutional amendment for 2 1/2 years time.

@scampben

1. ‘There is no time like the present’. It could be very detrimental if a journalist picked up the story that the Board’s constitution contains age discrimination.

2. We never know what might happen in the future. We need to be mindful of the possibility that we might be obliged to hold an election before 2012.

3. To have discrimination in the Constitution is a disgrace and it should be changed as soon as possible. I started pushing for this last July.

"No doubt the President considered .."

Irrelevant. If a Deputy gets 50 signatures it has to be discussed and voted on (Rule 35).

Still, a blinding success, eh Jonathan?

Better than you will acheive in a million years, Troll

Let's see:
Getting pro-Israel stuff in the media? Failed.
Getting politicians and other officials to be more supportive of Israel? Failed.
Getting the Jewish community to rally around the ZF? Failed.
Getting an amendment at the Board of Deputies? Failed.
Getting the anti-Zios to love you? Stonking success.
Priceless.

Yeah right

You're a proven liar as well as a troll ...:

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/british-jews-owed-apology

OK, apart from the abusive bullying comme l'hab, has Mr Hoffman proved that he is a stonking success at what he is supposed to be doing? I think not. If I were an anti-Zionist I'd want him to carry on as ZF vice-chair. As I am not, he should resign forthwith. If not sooner.

As a member of the Board of Deputies for seven years the age profile of the membership seems to have increased. The Board have realised that it is important to encourage younger members of the community to take an active interest in the Board and become involved in the leadership for the coming years.The under 35's observer scheme recently introduced by the Board has started,which hopefully will result in a cadre of younger people being groomed to take an interest in the Board and eventually represent their communities and stand for office .

Whilst Jonathan is entitled to his opinion my view is what is the point of having executive positions "bed blocked" by people who in their 70's and 80's who are past their best and do not have the energy, ideas and dynamism of younger leadership. I am 61 years old myself so I have no ulterior motive in opposing his motion.

Jonathan's politically correct stance where he has accused the Board of age discrimination is a misuse of the terminology. The retirement age in this country has for many years been 65 and no doubt will increase slightly for economic reasons. However Judges have to retire at 75 and there is still a maximum age for sitting on a Jury - surely that is not age discrimination. Political correctness is the enemy of common sense.

I suggest Jonathan should stop wasting Board time and put some of his energy into the more important issues that face the Jewish Community today.

Finally ,I would comment on a managerial perspective, perhaps the Board should have contacted Jonathan before the meeting and reminded him of Standing Order 23, rather than waste time with an unpleasant confrontation during the meeting in front of a Government Minister, which unfortunately did not present the Board at it's best.

What's that, Jonathan? You are the last person who could be described as "politically correct". I mean, after all, how can he be if he supports Yisrael Beiteinu?
And then there's...

I am not a self-publicist but I would politely suggest that I am the last person who can be accused of ignoring “the more important issues that face the Jewish Community today.”

Excuse me while I guffaw.

Also, for whom are you doing the bidding that you want a geriatric as president of the Board?

aha .. not just a troll but an ageist troll ...

Indeed, Jonathan.
"A geriatric" indeed! Who would have thought that you, Moshe, the sea-green incorruptible, the foe of all infamy, the friend of the marginalised, the enemy of all stereotyping, would have used old-age as a blanket term of opprobrium. Remember, in oriental societies, and in Mediterranean ones, my good Moshe, being of a certain age confers a certain worthiness or respect on a person.
Some nonagenarians are only just hitting their stride ...

I really couldn't care less about the age of the next president of the Board. Or even the one after that. All that matters is if he or she can do the job -- whatever that is. But one has become suspicious of the motives of such a potty-mouthed, bullying and hatred-ridden person as Mr Hoffman.
Oh and last time I looked at Chambers, geriatric was an adjective relating to old people with no hint of opprobrium.

Excellent Anthony we can have the debate here that we should have had yesterday!

First let me skewer the myth that my proposal is in some way inconsistent with the ‘under 35s’ scheme. The way to encourage under-35s is not to place discriminatory age barriers on office holders. Discrimination is wrong whether it is racially-based, religiously-based, sex-based or age-based. (As for being ‘politically correct’ - if you are 61 then you remember the signs that were outside houses to rent in the 1950s - - ‘No Blacks, no Jews’. If it is ‘politically correct’ to be thankful those days are behind us then I plead guilty as charged, m’Lud).

The way to attract young people – by contrast – is for the Board to be relevant, open and interesting – and most importantly for them to feel that they can make a difference and are not just turning up to help maintain the impression that the Board is ‘representative and democratic’. The fact that age is seen to be no barrier to office will make it more attractive to young people, not less. Young people want to see the Board standing against discrimination, not just for Muslims in Switzerland who now cannot put minarets on their mosques, but for older people in its own Constitution.

You say “The retirement age in this country has for many years been 65”. That is not correct. In employment it is effectively now illegal to set a retirement age. It is not yet technically illegal because employers can still force employees to retire at 65. But there is a government review of the legislation this year and last year Justice Blake (who presided over a case brought by Age Concern) commented "I cannot presently see how 65 could remain as a Default Retirement Age after the government review." (Times, September 26th).

Yes - you are correct that there remains an age limit for Judges (I think it’s 70 not 75 by the way). But the reason is quite unique - namely, the independence of the judiciary. There is simply no other way of getting an incapable Judge to retire – he cannot be sacked and cannot be replaced in an election. like the Board’s Honorary Officers.

I suggest Jonathan should stop wasting Board time and put some of his energy into the more important issues that face the Jewish Community today.

I am not a self-publicist but I would politely suggest that I am the last person who can be accused of ignoring “the more important issues that face the Jewish Community today.”

Finally you are concerned about Ivan Lewis’ sensitivities. I think this is possibly unnecessary. I have it on good authority that the average Labour Party backbenchers’ meeting makes the Board of Deputies look like a Teddy Bears' Picnic.

What's your motive in all this time wasting, Hoffman? Cui bono?

"Oh and last time I looked at Chambers, geriatric was an adjective relating to old people with no hint of opprobrium."
I was expecting this attempt to wriggle out of the trap you set for yourself, Moshe.
It all depends upon the context: "geriatric medicine" OK; "a geriatric" instead of "an elderly person" demeaning and discriminatory.
The G word, in fact. As loaded with contempt (and as contemptible) as the C, N, P, and Y words.

Gimme a high five, Jonathan!
We've got Moshe on the ropes!
;~]]