BA banned worker from displaying her Crucifx over her uniform

[VanillaMilkshake]

Cannot believe this has happened - it's PC gone mad!

BA advise they still allow turbans, bangles etc, as it's not practical to cover such religious symblols with the uniform. But banned a Christian worker from displaying a small silver crucifix no bigger than a 5pence piece!

Is England - Britain, not a historically Christian country - And are they not caled British Airways.

I am Christian and I where a crucifx at all times. However in no way do I look down upon or pretend to understand other religions. I belive firmly in freedom of choice - but feel this decision is ridiculous - where will it end?!

ooh yes. my friend had one of those bangles. she had to wear it at all times i think. i dont think she could even get it off!
if its 'bangles are ok but necklaces not' surely that is not fair somehow?

Agree with nulnulcat. BA are really picky about their uniform -- effectively want staff to look like clones (well, that's not quite how their official policy puts it ) so any visible necklaces are a no-no. I would think if she belonged to a Christian sect that made visible crucifix-wearing mandatory it would be more analogous to the Sikh bangle and hence justify an exception to the draconian uniform code, but AFAIK in this case she just independently wanted to wear it.

i think BA being incredibly stupid,the little cross may have been a present from the lady,s child ,how on earth can that cause offence to anybody,im sure a lot of peole would and do wear a cross not because of it being a religious thing but because they like the piece of jewellry. Seems we cant do anything these days without someone saying it may cause offence.its all getting bloody ridiculous

I think the story was that this woman was asked to remove her jewellery for health & safety reasons and she did her dinger slating racism/bigotery and anything else. It had hee haw to do with it being a crucifix.

i have just re-read the story and thelady in question was in fact wearing it for her religous beliefs.i am not a religious person but if i saw an air hostess wearing a cross ,it wouldnt make one bit of difference to me.i would see it for what is was ,a piece of jewellry.

Agree with nulcat, as with most airlines jeweller can be worn but shouldn't be visible. Sounds like someone is making a stand just for the hell (or heaven) of it.

She is making a stand for the sake of it imho. It wouldn't be getting any mileage at all if it weren't for the Muslim lady who refused to take off her veil at school or Jack Straw's comments last week. Perhaps she feels she is fighting back against people of other religions making a stand about traditional dress.

The cross identifies her as a Christian, fine, but lots of non-Christians wear crosses too. She could wear it under her uniform if she wanted to, and also it is not compulsory for a Christian to wear a cross in the same way as Sikh bangles etc.

btw, it's a cross, not a crucifix.

Surely tho othe Sikh bangle (which IS manditory) could be worn under long sleeved shirt/jacket for most of the year anyway?

I agree this woman is just milking it for attention, get a longer chain and stop moaning!

all these petty things get on your nerves when there are so many more important things going on in the world ie children having to wait for oprations,women not being able to have the right medicine for breast cancer etc ,does it matter if the lady wears it or not,does anyone realy care ?

mummylyn - I agree totally its a shame all this religious indignation is not directed towards the state of the health service or child abuse just think if what all these people could achieve. Instead of which they just blow hot air and piss everyone off.

PS sense of humour get me into hideous trouble!!

There was a woman on the radio earler who worked for BA. She said that their dress code states that no necklaces or chains of any type can be worn on display. However they can wear them underneath the cravat.

ba wouldnt have objected to a cross being worn - i wear a crucifix i never had a problem with it it just has to be worn under the uniform and not visible i also used to wear my engagement ring on a chain under my cravat not that rings were banned i didnt want to damage it

BA have not barred it on the grounds that it would cause religious offence AT ALL (see how these stories start?? - I especially like this thread because it has 'pc GONE MAD!!' in the very first post!!).

BA simply asked her not to wear visible jewellry, as their uniform code states, and presumably this woman's contract states. They have said she can wear what she likes if it is under her cravat.

According to the paper they said that she could wear it but under her uniform, which I think is fair enough.

Lots of places don't let you wear jewellery. I know places where people have to cover up wedding rings or take them off, remove watches & bracelets as these items could damage the products that they are working on. Doesn't mean that the company is anti marriage or whatever. Also many people have to remove facial piercings & have sensible hair colours.

If it was woman asked to cover up a random necklace nobody would care & wouldn't even bother to read about it.

I disagree.
There is a profound difference between health & safety and restricting freedom of epxression and religion, indeed within the culture of most religions is a getout clause for safety issues.
You're not required to lose fingers in machinery merely to express your faith, and you're certainly not to give others food poisoning.

There is a big danger in Blondilocks compromise position. The bad guys come up with an extreme and stupid position and we're supposed to go half way, which omly encourages them to come up with more extreme ideas, to make the "middle" ground nearer their view.

It doesn't stop with banning little crucifixes or the hijab, it starts there...
You won't like where it ends.

Message withdrawn

Going back to wedding rings - lots of people don't wear them, you don't have to wear them, doesn't mean you love your husband any less if you do or don't.

Unfortunately jewellery is a grey area in health and safety. Say this woman had to deal with a drunk, possibly violent person. If the news had been woman attacked by someone grabbing & pulling on necklace, spokeswoman says altho we are saddened by this event, this is why our rules say to wear items under the uniform.

Also I do think that if these people have such a strong faith why do you need tokens to prove it to others? It's different if it has more of a purpose, such as covering up your body in the company of men or whatever.

Also there is the problem of one rule for some & other rules for the rest. If you're allowed to wear crosses visibly then you'd only get people saying, well my husband got me this necklace when we got married or I simply must wear this as it was my grandmothers etc etc etc.

There's nothing stopping the woman from wearing the necklace. She'd know she was wearing it still, so what's wrong with that?

They aren't banning crucifixes though. This isn't even a new thing. BA rules(as far as I can tell) have ALWAYS forbidden visible necklaces of any kind. She can still wear it. It is purely mischief making.

Bloos, I accept that is what you believe, fine.
Maybe the majorotiy of Christians agree with you. Fine again.
But irrelevant.

"Relgious freedom" is not what you think is reasonable, nor what I, or some petty official at BA dream up.
Faith is a personal thing.
I personally think it is deluded to think that an all powerful God gives a toss about a trinket around someone's neck.
My opinion is irrelevant, if someone belives this bollocks then it's a relgious view.

Again it's a point of principle.
If you say that only the beliefs of big organised gangs of religious people are allowed, then you get into having people who make decide on that.

Who do you trust to make such a decision ?
Ruth Kelly ?

Actually as an exercise, try to think of any MP less suited to their current job than Ruth Kelly.
(Primalrollo doesn't count).

But this isn't about religion!

As far as I can see in this case, BA are not at all concerned with the religious aspect. They have simply decreed that what they term 'adornment' cannot be worn with their uniform. A silver crucifix is not a religious requirement (and in my grandparents very devout branch of chritianity would have been considered vulgar), and is therefore classed as jewelry.
Now, argue personal human rights v corporate uniform if you will, DC....and usually I would not be arguing very strogly in favour of strict uniform codes...but having endured a lunch hour trying to buy boots in a shop where the male assistants' personal freedom of choice included jeans worn so low that when they leaned forward their dicks showed through their cotton boxers - right at my eye level, I can see why some companies introduce it.

This is not about H&S, not about religion, but is very easily being tunred into a hysterical story about how minorities have it so much better and H&S is a mad front for all kinds of new PC Gone Mad scandals.

The BBC - did you get that the BBC already linked this quite spuriously to the veiled-TA issue...please can this awkward damn woman not b allowed to fuel any more MuslimMania?

She went on a course about diversity and came straighht back making a big point about her crucifix, for the first time in years. She is a stirrer.

I can't see why Sorrel thinks this is not a relgious issue, please explain ?
As for it being a "uniform" requirement, I'm surprised anyonw outside BA'sa PR department really thinks that.
BA doesn't have a uniform.
It has a variety of bits of clothes, adapted for various religions. It has made concessions for various religions, but refuses for this particular Christian.
This is religious discrimination.

I am saddened by Blus high handed view about "requirements". Are we going to only allow relgious observance if a big gang have written rules you must obey ?

No one here is less sympathetic to susperstition than me. So why is it that I find myself outnumbered standing up for the rights of individual Christians ?

ewwwwwwwwwwww @ the low slung jeans brigade, blu.

I am becoming more and more amazed at how supposedly impartial and reputable news agencies are willing to twist and create stories, seemingly purely in order to provoke public sensitivities. I know it has always happened but it seems so utterly blatent at the moment and objective reporting seems in very short supply indeed.

I can not understand the repeated statement that wearing the cross/cricifix is a statement of fashion and not Christianity. Whilst there is no scripture (that I know of) which requires Christ's followers to wear and display the cross/crucifix, there are certainly plenty of words in scripture which tell us to go and serve the Lord, to spread the word of Christianity, and so on. And, I believe that displaying the cross is but one means of doing this.

If this is a health and safety issue, then perhaps the woman in question should wear some cross earrings, or ring, or har piece.

It does seem politically incorrect to be Christian these days. And, I most certainly have a problem with that.

You're so right Scummy.
News of this nature is created by journalists for other journalists to comment on. Real humbug going on here.
Most people really couldn't give a shit.