Besoeker

[quote="Britannist"][quote="Besoeker"]This from a friend who has previously worked for BA and still has friends there:
If correct, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, it is status quo on necklaces for check in staff. It is exactly as it was when Nadia Eweida was told last October by BA managers she must not display a small necklace crucifix.

Yet it is being reported in the media as a "climb down" by BA.

Britannist

British Airways have 'lost' and their anti-Christian act - dressed up as a health and safety rule - has been defeated. This is a victory for those of us fighting political correctness. The freedom of the individual to wear whatever religious symbol s/he chooses to must be protected. The cost to 'British' Airways in bad publicity is huge and I should like to see the shareholders at 'British' Airways (BA) take this further - by demanding to question those in the management who made the decision to deny this pleasant woman (BA staff member and committed Christian Miss Nadia Eweida) the right to wear her miniscule Crucifix openly.

Miss Nadia Eweida will be wearing her necklace with the Crucifix on it when she returns to work.

I don't know the finer details of the conditions she appears to have accepted, but if it means covering up the necklace for a minute or two (for Health and Saefty reasons) while she handles a baggage device then she may be happy to go along with that. However, I am quite sure she will wear her necklace in full view of customers at the desk she works on for most of her working day and that necklace will, of course, include her Crucifix. People will now expect to see her wearing the Crucifix in view of passsengers and I am sure she will do so.

Even if Miss Eweida could not wear a necklace (and I am sure she and all other BA staff can wear one for most of the time they (BA management) can't stop her wearing a badge with the Cross on it as an alternative to the necklace - or an actual small cross which can be pinned to her jacket.

Neither can they stop her wearing earings with a small Crucifix dangling from them. in fact, Miss Eweida (and any other member of BA staff) can now turn up for work wearing Crucifix earings, a Crucifix badge and a Crucifix around her necklace - all at the same time.

In my view, if the politically correct 'British' Airways management had not backed down they would have faced damaging legal action from Christians and the ending of investment in the airline by the Church of England (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the most important Christian postholder in the world after The Pope) implied that his Church might end investments if the ban on the visibility of the necklace (upon which Miss Eweida wears her tiny Crucifix) was not lifted. He may also have called for a boycott of BA which could have resulted in tens of thousands of regular church-goers switching to other airlines.

Britannist

Thankyou, Modern UKIP. 8)

Besoeker

She was never prevented from doing so.

prober

6" dangling necklace caught in luggage belt ! versus headscarf caught in luggage belt or preventing emergency notice hearing ? hmm.

Write to Martin Broughton Chairman of BA . Waterside UB7 0GB and tell him hios Chief Executive Willie Walsh is an idiot to allow such damage to shareholders and BA to go on and on without doing the decent thing ... and hence Willie should be sacked for incompetance and share value and product public perception damage ( big mark down on "goodwill" asset value) .

mkpdavies

Health and safety makes me laugh. Who's health and safety are we talking about? Should they be the ones who decide whether to take the risk or not?

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Lib Dems

Feldoon

Baphomet.

It's more in a backlash to a culture who'd sue at the slightest wink.

You can't be sued if you told them not to do it.

I'm reminded of Weird Al's "I'll sue ya" about now.

Britannist

I think she was prevented from doing so if staff/customers could see it.

I never said that there was a ban on wearing a necklace. I just said there was a ban on the necklace (as worn by British Airways staff) being seen by other people.

Despite denials from 'British' Airways (BA), the ban was quite clearly aimed at those people who wore a Crucifix on their necklace.

The BA ban has failed and has had to be withdrawn. It has done the reputation of BA (what was left of it) enormous harm as a result of the worldwide bad publicity BA engineered for itself by trying to prevent one staff member from wearing a necklace with a miniscule Crucifix on it which could be seen by customers (none of whom complained anyway).

As I've written earlier, only use politically-correct BA if you have to.

g hall

BA British management at it's finest as they have now got a dispute over sickness on their hands

Besoeker

Fair enough. In your opinion it was. But all necklaces came under the same rules

Just picking up on a couple of other points you made.....

BA didn't ban Nadia Eweida from having her necklace on display. They offered her another post where she could have it on display. I think she declined.

As I read it, the ban on necklaces for check in staff has actually been withdrawn but that there will be some flexibility in enforcing it.