to think that this is religous discrimination.

[reallytired]

It seems over the top to have an investigation and threats of disciplinary action.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-13108578

If the company really objects to a palm cross then surely they could just ask him to remove it. Unless he has repeatly ignored reminders not to have personal artifacts in his van, then it seems a bit heavy handed.

I think the tenant who complained is just plain malicious. Its not as if a palm cross was hurting anyone.

Would this company allow a muslim electrician to carry a prayer mat in his van?

I think that this company need to do a spot check to see that EVERY van is clear of personal artifacts during the working day.

ffkk could you swear on your life which article is correct?

Or just because it is the mail it has to be wrong?

cantspel but presumably their rules don't prevent displaying personal items in offices. and how does his boss having a poster of Che Guevara prove that they are targeting Christians anyway?

cantspel unless they also make his boss take down his Che Guevara poster and those of other faiths remove their religious articles then he is being unfairly targetted.

Did you not read in the paper or the posts that the guy is allowed to have his cross at his desk?

If I saw the cross I wouldn't feel the need to complain, and the story is the kind of thing that makes the Daily Mail salivate. One thing did occur to me though. Why is he decorating a work van. I don't care if it's crosses or rosary beads or verses of the Koran or the mini football kit of his team or one of those 'Dad's Taxi' signs that make my teeth grate. It's a work van. Why does he feel the need to accessorise it?

no personal items is just that so unless his company supplied the poster than under the same rule that gets rid of the cross then the poster should go or they are only targeting christain items

"but unless they also make his boss take down his Che Guevara poster and those of other faiths remove their religious articles then he is being unfairly targetted."

How does it show that? he is equally free to adorn his desk or office (should he have one) with religious artifacts. Similarly all non-christians are equally restricted from adorning company vans with religious or any personal items. He is not being tartgetted at all, he is having a blanket rule applied to him in exactly the same way as every other company employee. There is no evidence of non-christians getting favourable treatment, or that this rule is being selectively enforced against Christians.

MIFLAW I remember when there were other minority groups in this country and we had to jump through hoops to include them. I find your comments harsh, we are supposed to be working towards tollerance to all people.

cantspel, when in doubt, I tend to think less highly of hysterical (not as in funny) articles, with an agenda. BTW I have read the Mail piece, what else have you read?

The poster isn't in a company vehicle.

Che Guevara isn't anything to do with religion is he? Apparently it's a motivational poster to do with the Company ethic.

So what has that got to with religion of any sort?

"no personal items is just that so unless his company supplied the poster than under the same rule that gets rid of the cross then the poster should go or they are only targeting christain items"

You are missing the relevant issue which differentiates the two
No personal items displayed in the company van.
displayed in the company van
in the van
THE VAN

Tolerance yes. Appeasement of those who wish to break our laws/rules - NO!

Thou shalt obey the rules even if you are christian.

Exactly Onagar. What if he wanted to display a mini Chelsea kit? I'd find that deeply offensive.

God forbid he'll want to fly a union jack for the Royal Wedding.

olin Atkinson, 64, has been called to a disciplinary hearing by the housing association where he has worked for 15 years after refusing to remove the symbol.
The disciplinary action is being taken even though Mr Atkinson's manager displays a poster of the Marxist revolutionary, Che Guevara, on his office wall.
Throughout his time with the company Mr Atkinson has had the 8in?long cross of woven palm leaves on the dashboard ? without receiving a single complaint.
But his supervisors at publicly?funded Wakefield and District Housing (WDH), West Yorks, demanded that he remove it on the grounds that it may offend people or suggest the organisation is Christian.
Mr Atkinson has refused to comply.
WDH ? which claims to be a neutral organisation ? has said allowing him to display the cross would demonstrate favour towards Christians. But employees who adhere to other faiths are allowed to wear headdresses and turbans.
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said last night it was "outrageous" that someone should be banned from displaying a cross.
He said: "If Muslims and Sikhs can display symbols of their faiths, such as wearing headscarves and turbans, then surely Christians should be allowed to display a cross."
Mr Atkinson said: "I'm really shocked. I have always had that cross in my van. It's a symbol of my personal faith. It's not offensive. It's in a discreet place."
The boss of the depot where he works in Castleford, West Yorks, has been allowed to decorate his office with a poster of Guevara, the Argentinian revolutionary. Denis Doody, WDH's environmental manager, also has a whiteboard on which are written several quotations by the Marxist guerrilla leader.
Last night Mr Doody said company policy prevented him from commenting.
However, a colleague said Mr Atkinson was a born?again Christian who expressed his religious views "far more overtly than just having a cross in his van". The colleague confirmed that Mr Doody had a poster of Che Guevara beside several motivational quotations, along with the sayings of other figures.
The Wakefield?based organisation began an inquiry after a tenant complained about the palm leaf cross. Mr Atkinson could lose his job over his alleged failure to comply with company policy, which prohibits employees from displaying personal items in the organisation's vehicles.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, chief executive officer of the Christian Legal Centre which is supporting Mr Atkinson, said: "This smacks of something deeply illiberal and remarkably intolerant."
WDH said all its drivers were subject to the same rules.
"We do not allow employees to display any personal representations in our vehicles, although they are free to do so upon their person," a spokesman said.

From the more worthy telegraph.

Why is it different to be allowed to display political marxist material from religious? And why target the vans and not the offices as both are property of the company and so the asme rules should apply.

cantspel And why target the vans and not the offices as both are property of the company and so the asme rules should apply.

Exactly. A 'clear desk' policy throughout.

And he has worked there for 15 years displaying his cross. At christmas so less than 5 months past they change the rules to say no articles in vans. He hasn't been flouting the rules for 15 years. From where i sit they change the rules to target him and him alone.

Well that would be the argument that they are disproportionately targetting their van drivers of all religions and not the corporate/management/executive members of staff and not as you have repeatedly suggested disproportionately targetting Christians.

You still have not provided one example of a non-christian member of staff being allowed to do something that a Christian member of staff is allowed to do.

*that a Christian member of staff is not allowed to do.

"From where i sit they change the rules to target him and him alone."

How is a rule addressed to all van drivers of all religions targetting him and him alone? Have all other members of staff been given a free-reign to disregard this law while only he must obey it?

From where i sit they change the rules to target him and him alone

Well yes we've seen this a lot. Christians believing that the whole world revolves around them.

He will only lose his job if if he continues to break the rules - his choice.

take the word christain out of it and lets just use the words personal items on display.

One person is allowed his personal items on display and the other isn't. Are they both being treated equally?

"cantspel And why target the vans and not the offices as both are property of the company and so the asme rules should apply.

Exactly. A 'clear desk' policy throughout."

I think a clear-desk policy is the best way to go for most places just to keep things simple and because I think 'tat' enshrining a desk looks really unprofessional. But there is a distinction because the vans are out in public as a representation of the company to all who see. Presumably as a housing agency most of their work is done on call outs and they will not have clients etc in the office work-space and as such the artefacts around the office will not be seen to be taken as a representation of the companies official stance/policy.