Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Remember evil BA and its unfair persecution of Christian employees?

It appears things are not as they were painted by some...

http://www.secularism.org.uk/acrosstobear1.html

I still remember all the accusations and claims made against "anti-Christian" BA and the time-honoured cries that ''they wouldn't dare do that to a Muslim"...

But no matter. Strike another victory for trial by media, even if the real tribunals have exposed the woman and the entire case for what they were.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thats really interesting.
    Theres almost always more than meets the eye in these cases. Im glad its been sorted out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the best bit is her turning down £8.5k compensation and the right to wear the cross and ending up with nothing :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh fuck off. You seriously expect me to trust and believe a source that is vehemently anti-religion?

    It doesn't reveal any "new" facts at all. It just gives a victimised woman a kicking for her religious beliefs. I mean, how DARE she ask that she doesn't work the most sacred day in the year? After all her colleagues, who admit that they don't give a stuff about the religious festival, should have the time off instead.

    With an attitude to the truth like yours you should work for the liars and fraudsters at the BBC.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Oh fuck off. You seriously expect me to trust and believe a source that is vehemently anti-religion?
    Do you think they've made up the official ruling of the tribunal then? :rolleyes:
    It doesn't reveal any "new" facts at all. It just gives a victimised woman a kicking for her religious beliefs.
    Victimised? I think it's British Airways the only party here that has been victimised.

    I'd describe that woman in a number of different ways, but 'victim' would certianly not be one of them.
    I mean, how DARE she ask that she doesn't work the most sacred day in the year? After all her colleagues, who admit that they don't give a stuff about the religious festival, should have the time off instead.
    Do you think she's the only Christian who works at British Airways? LOL!

    Plenty others do. And everybody (including her good self) was fully aware of the rules when she signed a contract with a company that operates 365 days a year.

    The difference between her and the thousands of other Christian BA employees who would very much like to have Christmas off is that everyone else doesn't demand to have the day off with complete arrogance and lack of respect for their fellow workers, but instead, if they have been pencilled in to work on that day, try to change shifts with a colleague taking advantage of the union-backed plan that allows this to happen.

    Rather than a victim she seems quite the bully to be honest.
    With an attitude to the truth like yours you should work for the liars and fraudsters at the BBC.
    Bah, you were doing so well and go and say that... :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Do you think they've made up the official ruling of the tribunal then? :rolleyes:

    Nope, but they've spun it so much even Alastair Campbell would be ashamed
    Do you think she's the only Christian who works at British Airways? LOL!

    Nope, but the Tribunal's own ruling states that her insistence that she be allowed Christmas Day off to observe a sacred holy day of obligation shows "insensitivity towards colleagues" and "lack of empathy for those without religious focus in their lives".

    Presumably this means that having to work Christmas Day so that someone with no religious affiliation to the Christian festival can have it off is "insensitive" and "selfish". Not quite sure how that one works.

    People who have religious obligations on a certain day should be automatically granted those days off. I fail to see why this is unreasonable. As for the employer hiding behind a contract to justify imposition of a working pattern that is discriminiatory and unfair, I can't believe you're seriously defending that. You wouldn't be in any other circumstances.

    Your hatred of the Christian faith really knows no bounds, does it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who cares, BA are still a load of shite.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Nope, but they've spun it so much even Alastair Campbell would be ashamed
    The findings of the tribunal are still the same, unbiased and unspinned facts for all to see.


    Nope, but the Tribunal's own ruling states that her insistence that she be allowed Christmas Day off to observe a sacred holy day of obligation shows "insensitivity towards colleagues" and "lack of empathy for those without religious focus in their lives".

    Presumably this means that having to work Christmas Day so that someone with no religious affiliation to the Christian festival can have it off is "insensitive" and "selfish". Not quite sure how that one works.
    No, it means that every other Christian BA employee doesn't make demands, specially after signing a contract that specifies it might be required to work on that day, and simply hopes to work something out if they are ever scheduled to work on Christmas day.

    Not her. Oh no. She must simply have BA assure her that she won't ever even be considered for work on that day. Everybody else please make way.
    People who have religious obligations on a certain day should be automatically granted those days off. I fail to see why this is unreasonable. .
    Whenever possible, yes, that would be nice.

    But that is not always possible. Every other Christian employee appears to understand this. No doubt they're not real Christians then, or as worthy as this poor persecuted woman.
    As for the employer hiding behind a contract to justify imposition of a working pattern that is discriminiatory and unfair, I can't believe you're seriously defending that. You wouldn't be in any other circumstances.
    How is discriminatory? And it is unfair to everybody, not just Christians. Such is life sometimes.
    Your hatred of the Christian faith really knows no bounds, does it?
    No. It's shameless opportunism and arrogance masquerading as discrimination that tends to get my goat. And the associated shit-stirring from the Daily Hatemail & co.

    The whole case was an absurdity anyway. Anyone can wear crosses underneath their uniform. Mentions of turbans as an attempt to claim religious discrimination are as irrelevant as are odious. Crosses and other such jewellery can be worn underneath the uniform. Turbans can't.

    This woman has made very serious- and doubtlessly financially costly- false accusations against her employer. She should count herself lucky she hasn't been kicked out altogether.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    People who have religious obligations on a certain day should be automatically granted those days off.

    Brilliant.

    I'm a member of the vowel religion, my religion requires me to spend all day praying for the vowels, each and every day when there are 3 or more vowels in the name of the day.

    Entirely workable and I should automatically be entitled to those days off, even if I sign a contract agreeing to shift patterns and a 365 working schedule?

    All religious police officers, nurses, doctors, leisure employees, air traffic controllers, mods, teachers etc should have their holy days of obligation rota'd off?

    :yes: Fantastic plan. :rolleyes:

    There was a reasonable provision from BA to give staff the option of swapping Christmas day shifts, seems fair to me.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The tribunal also heard how Eweida's attitude and behaviour towards colleagues had prompted a number of complaints objecting to her: "Either giving them religious materials unsolicited, or speaking to colleagues in a judgmental or censorious manner which reflected her beliefs; one striking example," said the judgment, "was a report from a gay man that the claimant had told him that it was not too late to be redeemed."

    Gasp! So?
    Indeed, the proselytising motivation of her desire to wear the cross over her uniform instead of underneath it was underlined when she said: "It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

    Double gasp! So what?

    On the initial issue of the cross I still think it was bad policy, not discrimination since it appears to have applied to everybody, but bad policy. What's wrong with wearing visible adornments around your neck (as long as they are not huge or somehow inflammatory). Why should you be banned from doing so? Her cross was tiny. I agree that she should have left off after BA changed its policy instead of carrying on; and she didn't need £8,500 compensation either. And no you don't get to decide on what days you will work when you've signed a contract and have the opportunity to trade days with colleagues. She does seem like a bit of a rebelrouser.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Oh fuck off. You seriously expect me to trust and believe a source that is vehemently anti-religion?

    While the source is undoubtedly biased it's reporting the results of the tribunal. She was wrong. We all knew it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    On the initial issue of the cross I still think it was bad policy, not discrimination since it appears to have applied to everybody, but bad policy

    This is the way I saw it as well.
    What's wrong with wearing visible adornments around your neck (as long as they are not huge or somehow inflammatory). Why should you be banned from doing so? Her cross was tiny.

    Health & Safety?

    Is it just me, or is she making a mountain out of a molehill? Also, since when did someone decide what days they do & don't work?:confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    People who have religious obligations on a certain day should be automatically granted those days off. I fail to see why this is unreasonable. As for the employer hiding behind a contract to justify imposition of a working pattern that is discriminiatory and unfair, I can't believe you're seriously defending that. You wouldn't be in any other circumstances.

    So Jewish and Seventh Day Adventists should automatically get Saturday off? As anyone who has ever worked in retail knows, Saturday is the busiest day - and it pays no better than any other day. It is unfair and discriminatory to other employees if they have to work Saturday's whilst other employees don't because of 'religious beliefs'.

    If you're working in the service sector; whether it be in a shop, working for an airline or a restaurant being prepared to work weekends is part of the deal. If you're an Orthodox Jew or Christian that won't work weekends you shouldn't be working in a service job. (The only exception is anyone on a Mon-Fri contract - which are rare in service jobs now, mostly only older employees have such a contract).

    There's some shops that don't open Saturday or Sunday because of the religious reasons of their owners.. The Entertainer toy shop close on Sunday's and there's a few shops around North London inc a big discount clothes shop place I know that don't open on Saturday. I've not got a problem with that.. but if you're taking a job somewhere where you're needed on weekends 'religious reasons' aren't an acceptable excuse... If we all join the vowel religion should we all be getting days off automatically Kermit?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would say that real life obligations such as children, doctor's appointments, parcel deliveries and scratching your arse should always be the priority for time off.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin, you really should stop reading The Guardian on your tea break.

    I'll remember this the next time you have a go at me for using allegedly dubious sources. You can't even be arsed to get this from, say, the BBC. At least the BBC pretends to be impartial, something you certainly can't say about that bunch of wallies at The Guardian. Here, we have The National Secular Society using an article printed in the communist-sympathising daily. One bunch of religion-hating Lefties using work from another bunch of religion-hating Lefties. Or in more earthy language, one bunch of cunts pinching the work of another bunch of cunts. However, I can't help but notice that shoddy excuse for a website has absolutely nothing to say about Muslims. Whyever not? Are this secular rabble too scared to confront people who actually defend their faith, instead of listening to politically correct robots like themselves.

    May they all burn in hell. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You know you must be correct when all people can do is criticise the source, rather than actually address any of the points it makes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    At least the BBC pretends to be impartial, something you certainly can't say about that bunch of wallies at The Guardian.

    What's your problem with The Guardian? Other than the fact that it has a different political opinion to you, of course? If you consider The Guardian a dubious source, then I expect that you won't be posting any more articles from the equivalent right-wing broadsheets: The Times and The Telegraph. And I can't remember anyone ever calling those newspapers dubious sources in a thread. And after your various rants about the "lefties" at the BBC, it's a bit rich to now ask for a BBC article on the subject.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You know you must be correct when all people can do is criticise the source, rather than actually address any of the points it makes.
    They don't make any points whatsoever, that's the problem. It's just a rant by some overpaid Guardian columnist, foaming at the mouth whilst wanking away at the prospect of a secular, Leftie utopia.
    And after your various rants about the "lefties" at the BBC, it's a bit rich to now ask for a BBC article on the subject.
    There's one difference. The BBC, to give it some credit, at least pretends that it's impartial. It's an open secret that it's not, but at least it keeps up pretences. Something called The National Secular Society can't really use that con trick.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    They don't make any points whatsoever, that's the problem. It's just a rant by some overpaid Guardian columnist, foaming at the mouth whilst wanking away at the prospect of a secular, Leftie utopia.

    It was in the comment section of the newspaper, so of course it's opinionated. And it was about the mainstream media coverage of the case, and all of the things they failed to mention, not a factual report of the events.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    There's one difference. The BBC, to give it some credit, at least pretends that it's impartial. It's an open secret that it's not, but at least it keeps up pretences. Something called The National Secular Society can't really use that con trick.

    So if someone tells you it's impartial, all is well and good, and you'll listen to what it has to say? Whereas if someone is open about their political opinions, you'll dismiss what they have to say out of hand because you happen to disagree with them (or think you will)?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So if someone tells you it's impartial, all is well and good, and you'll listen to what it has to say? Whereas if someone is open about their political opinions, you'll dismiss what they have to say out of hand because you happen to disagree with them (or think you will)?
    No, in either case, I'll listen to it, then ignore it. If the National Secular Society wants to convince some people, it could actually write some of its own rather than nicking them from an alleged newspaper.
Sign In or Register to comment.