Shhhhhhhhhh :thup:
7/7 Memorial vandalised on anniversary!!!
- Thread starter DAVEYBOY
- Start date
Shhhhhhhhhh :thup:
Company policy allows head dresses etc though. Surely you can't have one and not the other and be fair and equitable
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Isolated incidents homer - company policy that was changed.
Some companies don't allow head dress and burkas to be worn
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
I'm guessing that means you can't find where I have defend any extremists
Pathetic behaviour from a grown adult.
Ohhh we have Phillip rattled :rofl:
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Yes because for someone to come on a forum a suggest they excuse extremist behaviour shows how low some people will go to get people to react - I lost friends to extremists whilst away working - I saw people with their legs or arms gone , work colleagues gone and you decide to post that I excuse the behaviour of the people that caused such pain ! Think that shows the sort of person you are.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
PhilTheFragger
Provider of Entertainment for the Golfing Gods 🙄
Can we cut out the jibes or this thread will be closed
Thankyou
Thankyou
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
When has anyone ever suggested they don't want extremists removed ?
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Rumpokid
Challenge Tour Pro
Opens on mine too.Interesting article that says all you need to know.
woody69
Journeyman Pro
The fact that Phil has witnessed such acts of violence, but still shows tolerance and understanding says more about him as a person than those who come onto Internet forums spouting hateful nonsense. Not once has he suggested that extreme views should be tolerated or accepted and neither has he said that those individuals caught and proven to commit these acts should not be punished. He, like many others in the thread have stated that isolated incidents don't mean as a society we are tolerant to these people.
Last edited by a moderator:
woody69
Journeyman Pro
I don't think it really says anything at all tbh. Putting aside the fact it's over 2 years old all it states is the Government don't believe wearing the crucifix is a requirement of the faith, and it's true it isn't. It's therefore up to the individual companies to decide their own dress policies.
Surely though the argument has to be how can a government dictate what is and isn't permissible by faith and why doesn't it apply the same rules to each and every religion practiced in the UK.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
What rules does it apply to religion though ? Very generic statement
The government it appears are allowing companies to dictate their own policy
C
c1973
Guest
Correct.
And if we're being honest if wearing it is all that matters, it can be worn below a shirt or blouse, thus no one can be offended (although why they would be is beyond me) and you still get to wear it. Problem solved.
And therein issues begin. How many companies these days would be prepared to ban the burkha for fear of discrimination and a damaging court case. They tend to settle for a policy of minimal inconvenience. I know several hospital trusts drawing up dress policies and have been for a number of years and struggling to find suitable and acceptable grounds for all parties. Where do lines get drawn
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
I fail to see where the Government has stated what is permissible. What has been stated is that employers are not discriminating against employees on religious grounds by prohibiting the visible wearing of a crucifix.
Unlike the wearing of the burkha which to certain Muslims is a basic tenet of their faith the wearing of the crucifix is an expression of faith, not a requirement.
