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.

Not Stephen Green, SGB, the Christian Legal Centre.

I knew as soon as I saw the headline this would be one of theirs. Almost every nutty non-story ("they're persecuting me for being a Christian just because I've broken the rules applied to everyone") is. Playing the media is a big part of their game.

Edam, only because you approve of one and not the other. You must realise that the KKK feel their cross is okay too just as you feel this is okay.

It's a symbol of a religion which has murdered many in the name of its god and people may well see it as just as offensive.

I certainly find religion offensive for one and you will find there are millions of others.

MaisyMooCow, but it isnt a Christian company. It's just a company. Why does the company feel it has to be a neutral company so as not to offend anyone.

Whether you like it or not, company branding is important. Conveying your company values to the public is important. A van is one of the faces of a company out in the world.

I would be bloody cross if one of my staff took to using a company van as a platform for Christian symbols or any other religious paraphanalia that could make the public think it was a Christian company, or a muslim company or a Hindu company. I would also ban any political symbols and also teddies n the back window! (for looking naff).

I think it was a bit much to complain, but the fact that someone complained isn't the issue. It isn't a religious requirement for christians to drive around with a palm cross (or any cross) on the dashboard, and they had been specifically told not to display any personal objects. A prayer mat in an employees rucsac would be a differnt matter.

That last was meant to be in quotes. You seem to have slipped off the deep end and imagined that the company was hiding its deep devotion to god in order to be PC,

It's not about offending people, it's about giving the public the message that it's a christian company, when it is a religion-non-specific company (presumably).
These things count in marketing terms.
Some other company may wish to market themselves with thier christin credentials in full view on the dashboard - maybe this man should go and work for one of those companies?

"MIFLAW, golly, where do you work?" In local government.

"And why is it a problem if people have Christian screensavers?" Because it's a fucking nuisance.

Onegar, my point is to get at the tenant who complained about the item in the van. Clearly they found it offensive enough to complain. It is that I'm questioning. How is this item so offensive? .

Or, was the tenant so knowledgeable ( I doubt) about the company's clear van policy and thought it was doing a good deed by reporting the driver.

Sorry, I meant to add, anyone who cannot accept another religious symbol of another faith is clearly not tolerant. Surely they're the ones that need reporting!! To who I don't know!!!

Just watching the ITV news, they're about to cover it.

It's a branding issue!

Typical example of CLC story-mongering.

Here's the story according to CLC:
Wandsworth Council have today sacked London Homelessness Prevention Officer after previously threatening 'say 'God Bless' and we'll sack you'.

And here's the local rag:
Wandsworth uphold decision to sack evangelical housing officer
and
Christian housing official loses appeal over dismissal by Wandsworth Council.

The half-hour lecture to a terminally woman about how her illness was her own fault for not believing in god doesn't quite make it into the CLC version. Neither does the fact the council worker was only suspended until CLC got involved, whereupon he discussed the woman's confidential info to the Daily Fail. And was sacked.

MaisyMooCow so you think the KKK cross and the swastika are okay then?

But of course you don't do you. It's just that you and Edam both think that if YOU approve of a religion that makes it okay.

To expand on that rather flippant response ...

I work in an OFFICE. Not a church, or a moanstery, or Souls R Us. A local government office.

I do not want to be bombarded by mentions of other people's religions all day, every day, any more than I want to look at page 3 or Pirelli calendars all day. And if it's on your screen, or on your desk, it's in my face. Jesus or tit-model alike, it doesn't make you a bad person; it does mean I wish you would keep it to yourself.

I take your point about football, which is also annoying - but, purely personally, I find it far less annoying. I actually find the religious stuff offensive, because the message seems to be, not just that that worker cares, but that I shuold care too. And I really, REALLY don't.

This all becomes much more unacceptable once it's out in public, of course, hence my original points.

onager, you really are being deliberately obtuse. The palm has nothing to do with the KKK at all. And you can't hold all Christians responsible for the KKK, any more than you can hold all Jews responsible for Israeli governmental policy towards the Palestinians, or all Catholics responsible for the IRA. Or all Muslims for the deeds of terrorists who claim to be acting in the name of Islam.

Some Christians have done terrible things in the name of their religion. And some have done great things. Banning all Christian symbols would be a ridiculous over-reaction.

Some Muslims have done terrible things in the name of their religion. And some have done great things. Banning all Muslim symbols would be a ridiculous over-reaction.

Blu I agree with some of your points however the company's policy was quite unclear.They won't allow someone to display an item in the van but they are allowed to wear it upon their person.

Surely the van and uniform are one in the same and both should be clear of items.

Take your point, MIFLAW. Personally I get more annoyed about ruddy football and also by people who have fluffy ickle pink crap and glitter all over their desks. Or cute signs. Or motivational phrases. I'd ban the lot - anything other than Dilbert cartoons. And I suppose I could stretch to permitting pictures of children and ONCE piece of artwork per child. (Although I've never seen the point, myself, I know what ds looks like, why would I need his photo on my desk?)

No onagar I certainly don't agree with a swastika/KKK symbol. My point is that I don't recognise them as a religion that's all. Pardon my ignorance but I thought these were 'groups' not religions. They've come about and are based on hatred. They have no connections to any type of god whatsoever.

Edam, you are confused. I'm not saying that the KKK cross is the same as the palm cross. I'm demonstrating that a religious symbol can legitimately be described as offensive.

Once you accept that the KKK cross (and any other symbols they might have) can be offensive and that the swastika can be offensive than you have to accept that the symbols of Christianity can be offensive. I'm an atheist and there might be many more of us if we hadn't been persecuted and murdered by the Christian churches in the name of their god.

Once you accept that then your prick remark is no better than calling a Jew a prick for complaining about someone waving a swastika.

"Take your point, MIFLAW. Personally I get more annoyed about ruddy football and also by people who have fluffy ickle pink crap and glitter all over their desks. Or cute signs. Or motivational phrases. I'd ban the lot - anything other than Dilbert cartoons. And I suppose I could stretch to permitting pictures of children and ONCE piece of artwork per child. (Although I've never seen the point, myself, I know what ds looks like, why would I need his photo on my desk?)"

I largely agree - but when I see pink shit on a desk, I just tend to think, "ah, shame." Whereas Christian shit on a desk has a clear goal to it in my experience, a form of low-level proselytising. This, incidentally, is also why the football shit doesn't rile me - it is clear, when a Man U fan and a Liverpool fan sit side by side and both have football memorabilia on their desk, that they are not seriously expecting to convert or sway each other. This is not the impression I get about the God-tosh left lying around in this office (or, indeed, included in e-mails, leaving cards to non-believers, etc.)

The rules of this company are and seem to made up on the hoof to single out this particular person.

Apologies for reading first and last pages.

Everyone can wear religious symbols.
Everyone can have them on their desk.
No one can keep personal items in their van.
Someone keeps a personal item in their van and gets bollocked for it.

Where the hell is the discrimination? You obey the rules of your employer and keep whatever it is that you feel is so bloody important on your desk or on your person. Simple.

Christianity is under attack? Hardly, but Marcus Brigstocke says it better than me

MaisyMooCow, see the post I just made for what I'm getting at here.

Also (and this is just for curiosity since the KKK thing was simply an example I picked out of the air)

According to the Klan, the blood drop represents the blood shed by Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for the White Aryan Race.

onegar I understand what you're saying but we have to learn to live with symbols of religion. A woman wearing a burka, a hindu wearing a turban are all signs of their religion and what it stands for . Do we ask them not to do this because we don't want to be around signs of religion.

I think we have a way to go before we can be all understanding of each other's beliefs.

Well, if they have told him he can wear a cross round his neck, then I fail to see how they are discriminating against him on religious grounds! I think there IS a difference between an employee using their own neck on which to hand a small item of religous jewellry (though many companies wouldn't allow that with uniform) - it's clearly personal - and an 8" cross in the window!

Also, this is a huge over-reaction - ALL public companies would hold an 'investigation' if a complaint was made and company policy had been breached - 'investigation' simply means ask all parties for the facts and come to some recomendations. Which might involve disciplinary action. Saying that one outcome of an investigation could be discipliniary action is simpy a matter of fact. Not a threat!

I would never complain about a cross in a van, nor would I be offended - that would be absurd (IMO). But I can see why a company wishes it's branding protocols to be adhered to, and why personal symbols and objects in van windows contravene those.

I wouldn't allow a gay driver to display an 8" rainbow flag on the dashboard, or my friend to out in an anti-badger culling sticker - though I am dismayed by the endless discriminatiuon against gay people, and agree that badgers shouldn't be culled. It isn't about belief, it's about keeping your brand exactly as you wnat it, not laced thorugh with lots of messages which give the poublic certan impressions, for better for worse.

Tell it to the Jews. They are obviously making a fuss over nothing.

I don't think we should be understanding of each other's beliefs. I don't object if you want to go to church on Sunday, but some people believe it's okay to stone women and homosexuals. Others believe it's okay to abuse children. I don't care what race people are, but I do care what they believe - certainly if they are coming anywhere near me.