Scare Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Yes their ban is on jewellery, it's not solely aimed at religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I thought only ms Chaplin had a case but I just read it again and I realised I kinda rushed reading it before, she was moved to a deskjob after similar reasons to the other woman at BA.. So now in my opinion, none of them have a case Chaplin has no case, either, scare. the basis of the case is that:- "The Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation NHS Trust said the necklace for Mrs Chaplin's cross breached health and safety guidelines. It said she was offered several alternative ways to wear her cross, including having it under her uniform, but she chose not to accept them." She said: "It was as if they thought I would deliberately risk harming a patient by my choice of expressing my faith." No, Ms Chaplin. There was a rule in place about not wearing necklaces because there was a risk that patients could grab the jewellery, and potentially throttle the wearer. The NHS Trust was protecting you, and other staff members from assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scare Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Chaplin has no case, either, scare. the basis of the case is that:- "The Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation NHS Trust said the necklace for Mrs Chaplin's cross breached health and safety guidelines. It said she was offered several alternative ways to wear her cross, including having it under her uniform, but she chose not to accept them." She said: "It was as if they thought I would deliberately risk harming a patient by my choice of expressing my faith." No, Ms Chaplin. There was a rule in place about not wearing necklaces because there was a risk that patients could grab the jewellery, and potentially throttle the wearer. The NHS Trust was protecting you, and other staff members from assault. Yes I agree, I misread it, I took it as she was removed from her desk toanother desk but she worked on flights so has no case, none of them do.......is this true? Did she work on flights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Only Ms Eweida and Mrs Chaplin have a case as for other two they would have to agree to the new law otherwise they would have to leave,maybe compensated but you can't have someone in that position refusing to marry same sex I thought only ms Chaplin had a case but I just read it again and I realised I kinda rushed reading it before, she was moved to a deskjob after similar reasons to the other woman at BA.. So now in my opinion, none of them have a case Interesting, and reassuring, to note that your opinion has changed as you have learnt more about the details of these cases. Before you actually examined your position, before arriving at the correct one, perhaps you had noted some of the headlines in the Mail, Telegraph or Express? Today's Express runs with the headline "NO RIGHT TO WEAR A CROSS AT WORK" in large letters across two thirds of the front page. This is quite simply a manipulation of the truth, and scaremongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Interesting, and reassuring, to note that your opinion has changed as you have learnt more about the details of these cases. Before you actually examined your position, before arriving at the correct one, perhaps you had noted some of the headlines in the Mail, Telegraph or Express? Today's Express runs with the headline "NO RIGHT TO WEAR A CROSS AT WORK" in large letters across two thirds of the front page. This is quite simply a manipulation of the truth, and scaremongering. The express has also, quite conveniently, in my opinion, disabled the comments facility for that story. It also failed to say, in all its self-righteous it's froth and foam, that Eweida and Chaplin had been offered a number of alternatives, from their employers, in an effort to reach a compromise. They refused these alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scare Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Interesting, and reassuring, to note that your opinion has changed as you have learnt more about the details of these cases. Before you actually examined your position, before arriving at the correct one, perhaps you had noted some of the headlines in the Mail, Telegraph or Express? Today's Express runs with the headline "NO RIGHT TO WEAR A CROSS AT WORK" in large letters across two thirds of the front page. This is quite simply a manipulation of the truth, and scaremongering. No I dint read any other papers or sites, just this one here, I quickly read it and misread she was moved from her deskjob to another but that wasent the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Yes I agree, I misread it, I took it as she was removed from her desk toanother desk but she worked on flights so has no case, none of them do.......is this true? Did she work on flights? Chaplin was a nurse, scare; she didn't work in the air travel industry. It was Eweida who was the member of airline staff. But, yes, Eweida was moved to a less front-line position, from one desk-job to another, as a result of her refusal to comply with the uniform rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scare Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Yes I should have looked at it properly but as I was in discussion with more important threads I didn't.. But after reading the facts,none of them have a case I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Why not? We are all subject to changes in legislation, and cannot use religion as an excuse for avoidance. I'm not arguing in favour of using religion as an excuse for avoidance. You're correct in that we are all subject to changes in legislation and religion should play no part in avoidance. Ironically religion does play a part in our judicial system unless you think the Bible is a court door stop. How the ECHR deal with it if it gets that far I don't know, that's why I said "maybe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Maybe now you can understand why some find religious relics offensive, not because of the religious factor, but the immaturity of wanting to be offensive rather than a belief. You work for an atheist? Its not wanting to be offensive,its the loss of freedom that makes me want to protest. The control is what i find offensive. If the boss raises any objections,i can always find another job,they're are plenty of other pubs looking for glamourous bar staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.