" Emma Clark, employment specialist at law firm Fox, said: "The court decided today that BA was justified in applying a blanket ban on the wearing of visible jewellery for a customer-facing employee. This decision is a sensible interpretation of the nuances of the indirect discrimination legislation; Eweida's desire to display a cross around her neck in the workplace was a personal choice and not a religious requirement ".
Sorry but what a load of bollocks.
" a customer-facing employee "? The biggest load of crap I have heard in ages.
Yes I agree that wearing a cross around her neck is a " personal choice " but then again so is wearing a bangle around your wrist.
"Eweida has claimed that she will now appeal to the Supreme Court but in the meantime, employers can feel more confident in imposing dress codes and banning the full veil and other religious symbols which are not clearly required by an employee's religion."....amen to that.
Darren Sherborne, head of employment at law firm Rickerbys, warned employers were still in the dark as to whether a blanket ban on religious symbols could be fully justified.
"This is not a helpful ruling to employers who remain none the wiser as to what is acceptable when balancing the different rights of different interest groups," he said. "It's also a surprising ruling in view of the claims that other religions were permitted to wear religious jewellery, and it may cause something of a backlash."
Meet Swingers
Entertainment
Latest Members
Fun and Games
Information
Shopping
Site Stats
- Members:
- 1,389,800
- Online Now:
- 1,999
- Msgs Sent:
- 157,443,049
- Photo Ads:
- 745,626
- User Pics:
- 579,536
- Video Chat:
- 170
right then :
having had a insurance health and safety assessment in the work place (albeit 2 odd years ago )
enemy no 1 was the good ol ring next was watches, bangles ,bracelets, followed by long hair and necklaces
my next point would be why does a doctor have to wear a wrist watch when pocket watches are still made ??? and a sikh`s bangle could be worn on his ankle or bandaged up his arm so as not to get caught
and i would hate to have a bangle or watch touching the bed when a patient had a crash team trying to restart a heart with 20,000 volts
as powers rightfully points out i doubt any true risk assessment had been made regards these items
back to the crucifix thing :
if she was clever she would have pinned a the biggest fuckof crucifix she could find on her uniform if your gonna make a point then make it properly
having had a insurance health and safety assessment in the work place (albeit 2 odd years ago )
enemy no 1 was the good ol ring next was watches, bangles ,bracelets, followed by long hair and necklaces
my next point would be why does a doctor have to wear a wrist watch when pocket watches are still made ??? and a sikh`s bangle could be worn on his ankle or bandaged up his arm so as not to get caught
and i would hate to have a bangle or watch touching the bed when a patient had a crash team trying to restart a heart with 20,000 volts
as powers rightfully points out i doubt any true risk assessment had been made regards these items
back to the crucifix thing :
if she was clever she would have pinned a the biggest fuckof crucifix she could find on her uniform if your gonna make a point then make it properly
neilinleeds wrote:
* That's by way of an indirect reply to you too ForestFunsters. Don't know you well enough to know if you're bleating or not?
* That's by way of an indirect reply to you too ForestFunsters. Don't know you well enough to know if you're bleating or not?
I don't know what "bleating" means - it sounds vaguely offensive but I'll allow for regional language variations.
Your point "Indeed in the Department of Health’s working group on uniforms and laundry it is clearly demonstrated that “there is no conclusive evidence that uniforms (or other work clothes) pose a significant hazard in terms of spreading infection"
Sorry to burst your bubble, but DOH working groups inevitably find whatever results the DOH wants them to. I should know, I’ve worked as consultant to many of these groups. Remember the marijuana fiasco?
My main concern about all this is not whether they’re Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or fluffy bunnies, it’s the cost to the nhs for an article of clothing, the need for which is based solely on religious reasons. The nhs is not the bottomless cornucopia of cash that people seem to think it is. How much of your health are you willing to sacrifice for religious reasons, that perhaps aren’t even your own? Would you be happy that your child/father/mother etc was suffering a lack of care because the “funds weren’t available”? The title of this thread is “religious differences”. I don’t know of any other religion that aims to cost the nhs so much, with no provable clinical need.
Just a quick number crunch here, approximated by a combination of research and professional knowledge. If you want to check the numbers yourself, the info is out there.
At the moment, there are over 700 000 NHS clinical staff, of which number approximately 100 000 are muslim females. On a busy ward in an 8 hour shift, a nurse can go between patients over 100 times including obs, meds, toileting etc and would use 200 plastic sleeves per shift. A full-time nurse can work up to 230 shifts per year. This equates to a cost of approximately 161 million pounds per year to the nhs for plastic sleeves. The current cost of alco-gel and special soap is approximately 48 million pounds. The reduction in the cost of the gel and soap budget if plastic sleeves were purchased would be about 7 million pounds, so we come to a very approximate cost of 120 million pounds extra per year should the plastic sleeves be purchased by the nhs.
120 million pounds would buy:-
1000 emergency ambulances, that save lives.
4800 more nurses, who save lives.
50 MRI scanners
900 X-ray machines
100 000 wheelchairs.
Millions of vaccines, research grants, ward updates, training, the list is endless.
As I’ve said countless times, the numbers are approximate, but they are close. We could also spend millions on embroidering crucifixes onto nhs staff uniforms so they don’t dangle offensively, or on autoclavable yarmulkes or any number of measures that pander to individual religious preferences.
Or we could spend it on making people well.
