ok so what is the difference between wearing a necklace .bangle. other than the obvious necks and arms thing
i know i`m illiterate but was sure i was all over the stupid thing
hurry up neilinleeds lol
Sex God
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Religious differences
Sex God
Quote by Rob
neil i`m missing something then
educate me send me the links i will read happily always ready for a change of mind but could i have younger one mines a bit worn one side
Quote by Rob
hurry up neilinleeds lol
If you insist . . .
Click
N x x x ;)
Quote by neilinleeds
neil i`m missing something then
educate me send me the links i will read happily always ready for a change of mind but could i have younger one mines a bit worn one side
Quote by Rob
hurry up neilinleeds lol
If you insist . . .
Click
N x x x ;)
Bloody hell, Neil..that's clever
Sex God
Quote by neilinleeds
neil i`m missing something then
educate me send me the links i will read happily always ready for a change of mind but could i have younger one mines a bit worn one side
Quote by Rob
hurry up neilinleeds lol
If you insist . . .
Click
N x x x ;)
sorry neil i think i see its not discrimination because the tribunal says it wasn`t is the only consistent story there
there was also the ruling that the cross was not considered mandatory for her faith hmmm
or am i still having a thick moment and looking for a point at the blunt end
The nurse was asked to remove the neckless and cross because of a health and safety risk that a patient could grab it and possibly hurt her ,not because there was a threat of spreading germs...she was given the option to pin it too her uniform,she declined the compromise and lost the case...tough shit!!
If it had just been nothing more than a chain, the hospital would still have asked her to place it inside her uniform, but it sounds to me she just wanted to be awkward and make some kind of point, an invalid one at that!
If it had just been nothing more than a chain, the hospital would still have asked her to place it inside her uniform, but it sounds to me she just wanted to be awkward and make some kind of point, an invalid one at that!
Sex God
Quote by flower411
neil i`m missing something then
educate me send me the links i will read happily always ready for a change of mind but could i have younger one mines a bit worn one side
Quote by Rob
hurry up neilinleeds lol
If you insist . . .
Click
N x x x ;)
sorry neil i think i see its not discrimination because the tribunal says it wasn`t is the only consistent story there
there was also the ruling that the cross was not considered mandatory for her faith hmmm
or am i still having a thick moment and looking for a point at the blunt end
Simply looks like a bored moment and trying to get somebody to insult you !
then again i might just not be seeing something in the same manner as someone else which is why i asked am i getting the point he was trying to make neils taking the time to explain his point and i`m taking the time to listen and try to learn his point
and you your what exactly !!!!!
Sex God
thank you powers i see that point perfectly
Sex God
so does that mean a disclaimer must be made by wearers of watches and other artifacts for example bangle gets trapped in door during rush to theater 
Sex God
Quote by flower411
Please could some one post a recent link so I can read. Is a nurse permitted to wear a cross or not?
This is a direct quote from the original link posted by the OP
"He said the damage to Mrs Chaplin was 'slight' and she should have accepted one of the hospital's compromises, including pinning the cross to her uniform. "
Thank you,
I would come to the conclusion that the cross has not been banned, but the necklace has been banned
Would that be a fair assumption?
Quote by Lizaleanrob
so does that mean a disclaimer must be made by wearers of watches and other artifacts for example bangle gets trapped in door during rush to theater
Not unless a health and safety assessment has been made regarding bangles and watches for such situations, but i doubt it has.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
The BA worker was banned from wearing her cross because?.............
Because she most likely had a written contract with her employer, that she freely signed up to, that had a specific dress-code that she freely signed up to when she took the job, which included a requirement to wear the uniform specified by her employer at her place of work?
Maybe? Just guessing like. She did her best to turn it into some kind if discriminatory thing, but the courts were having none of it, cos no matter what the Red Tops have to say, it was never about crucifixes, at all, and that's why she lost her case. It's not difficult?
N x x x ;)
" 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."
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."
Sex God
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 :scared:
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 :small-print:
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 :scared:
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 :small-print:
Quote by neilinleeds
* 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.
