John Rumm wrote:
Styx wrote:

doesn't excuse you for having to pointlessly mention the possible
national status of an individual when that status, for the issue being
discussed, is *entirely* irrelevant. What difference does it make what

Well ISTM that it is relevant. The fact that the worker is non native
and young suggests potentially not only inexperience, but also a
possible lack of familiarity with standard building practices in this
country, and the probably the legislation relating to party walls.




That surely implies that a young, native British citizen would
automatically have an innate understanding of building
regs/practises/legislation. Heck, until I actually purchased a house and
started to do DIY, I didn't have the slightest clue what a "party wall"
was -- they don't exactly teach these things in school.

The fault lies with the foreman (or supervisor) for not detailing how
the work should be done, or the company for not giving the worker the
correct tools or sufficient training (yes, I know, training tends to be
woefully lacking in many jobs these days).

My argument is that any worker could have caused the damage, regardless
of ethnic background, if they had not been given sufficient training or
guidance. Additionally, there's no way of knowing (without seeing his
passport or birth certificate) how long that individual has been living
in the UK, or even if he has UK citizenship or not. He may well be a
naturalised British citizen, or he may have even be born here for all we
know. If that's the case, does it warrant calling him a "foreigner" ?
Should we call everyone who has a different accent to ours a foreigner?


Styx