Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well..yes and no, but that's a whole other barrel of kettles of fish. Or something.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Orlanth. She was free to wear it, but not to display it. But of course, the persecution complex continues. And how do you work out I have taken the side of fact, and not wild speculation, out of hate for anything?

Well from your choice of wording throughout it is clear you are not looking at this case dispassionately.

A more current example from this page you claimed the case was 'laughed out of court', it was eventually lost yes, but laughed out of court has certain tone to it and generally refers to when a judge or jury dismisses a case out of hand. You have no evidence for this whatsoever, the slant you add is an emotive one, not a logical one. There is a difference between a case lost and a case with zero credibility. Even Tony Blair asked BA not to fight this case, and there was a lot of sympathy for the plaintiff.

As far as the case was concerned it is transparent it was fought on the wrong grounds, because compromises were offered before the incident resulting in her suspension a good lawyer (I am sure BA has a few of those) could argue that it was not discrimination against her. The real issue was a lack of equality, something subtly different, discrimination by application of different standards. In this she was right, but the law covers this issue differently than direct religious discrimination. She could not prove that BA was attacking Christians per se, which sadly is the standpoint she brought the case forward on.

In any case BA changed its policy towards wearing religious iconography. This defused any claim of discrimination and achieved the primary equality goal, and likewise showed that change was needed and the prior system was unfair. Again proof that there was to some extent a case to answer.

Fair enough it looks like we aren't going to agree on this one.

To me its a simple matter.

1) Essential religious wear. Ok
2) Non essential religious wear. Can be worn but cannot be on display.

Seem like a perfect acceptable compromise from BA to me. The woman's response was simply Sour Grapes.

But I'd like to get back to the primary discussion at hand. So I'm drawing a line under this one. Can we please get back to the subject of the rise far right politics?

Point, we agree to disagree.

This is getting too far from BNP to really belong as part of the topic anymore.

Oh, and I'm English, even in an apocalypse scenario I would not be running. Perhaps a brisk stroll or moderate increase in one's gait, but running is only performed by those wearing shorts. I am forbidden to do this as it constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment for any bystanders, not to mention the reflected light blinds plane pilots. PLus all the tourists think the cliffs of Dover are suddenly moving.

I mean moving in a brisk skirmish formation.
Dakka Men don't run for no steenkin Zombies...

I worry that the BNP is gaining in popularity, but it seems like politics overall is lurching only slightly rightwards (and here in the US, it's actually gone the other way now that the Democratic Party is in power). I'm more concerned about Far-Right politicians who were or are actually in governments like the late Jörg Haider of Austria, or Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, or even Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. They scare me more than the BNP simply because they already seem to have populist support.