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.

olympia wrote:Yes. Microsoft says why hire an American software engineer for $70,000 when you can get one from India for $30,000?

Nah, the issue was visas, which means bringing in foreign staff to work in the US and paying US rates. This is done because the company is after specific expertise, or the absolute elite, brainiest folk around.

The issue of shipping departments overseas to pay lower wages is different.

LuciusAR wrote:

That is genius.

LuciusAR wrote:
That story really really wound me up. The policy on jewelery was clear and had naff all to do with religion.

Maybe if you were les angry you would have read ther article better, in whatever source you read it.

The challenge was not over jewellery but over religious exemption. British Airways had a strict dresscode and understandably so. No shawls allowed, but a hijab or turban was ok, because it was a religious item and was therefore exempt. When a Christian wore a cross (Catholics and high anglicans are the main denominations that do) it fell foul of the no jewellery part of the dress code. From then on it became a simple case of unfair treatment.

LuciusAR wrote:
It could have been any kind of pendant and the same rule would apply.

Yes because there isnt a religious exemption for a pendant.

LuciusAR wrote:
It was a gross misrepresentation of the facts and outright shoddy journalism.

Daily Mail made a meal of this, but the core of the case was sound. If dresscode is variable for some religions it should be variable accross the board.
You simply rejected the article because you have a hate on for the source. That is bad political thinking sir, all the papers string a line sometimes, and they all have their bias. The Daily Mail now gets more fingerpointing than the Sun and the Mirror combined, which I find rather puzzling actually.

LuciusAR wrote:
Don't get me started on this! It a cheap way of having a crack at the Government. I think about 1/3 of the PM's over the last 100 years have come to office this way. Most of them were Tories. If your going to attack the government at least do so on the grounds of their genuine flaws as opposed to this half arsed crap which only shows your own ignorance of the system.

Oh really, which third of [evil] Tory Prime Minsters [sinisterly] rose to power this way?

LuciusAR wrote:
Oh and anyone on a message board who thinks misspelling a party name or politicians name (Such as Nu-liebore, Nu_laba or Tony Bliar) represents a genuine intelligent argument they should have their hands cut off!

There was an army recruitment poster from the 70's which showed the four basic rights of the British people that the army defended by defending the borders. Yes, its army recruiting and thereby propoganda but, its interesting which rights were pointed out.

Freedom of expression
Freedom to vote
Freedom of faith and consceince
and Freedom to lampoon the government

The Freedom to lampoon the government looked out of place but it is more important than it looks. Blair is a good example, who had quote a 'Charles the first complex' and tolerated little critique. Prescott was even worse, it's not just them, many politicans and civil servants tend to be like that, they are tempted to believe they are above the law after they have held power for a while. It is part of the ugly deep inside of human nature.

Do you still beleive Tony Bliar over the Iraq WMD dossier? Which is where he got the name. If you do you will be pretty much alone.

Orlanth wrote:

Maybe if you were les angry you would have read ther article better, in whatever source you read it.

The challenge was not over jewellery but over religious exemption. British Airways had a strict dresscode and understandably so. No shawls allowed, but a hijab or turban was ok, because it was a religious item and was therefore exempt. When a Christian wore a cross (Catholics and high anglicans are the main denominations that do) it fell foul of the no jewellery part of the dress code. From then on it became a simple case of unfair treatment.

The difference is that a hijab or a turban at all times are a requirement of their respective religions so there is a case for a exemption to be made. The wearing of a cross is not, therefore no need for a exemption. It was nothing more than professional victimization on the woman's part and whipping up middle England hysteria on behalf of the papers.

Orlanth wrote:

Yes because there isnt a religious exemption for a pendant.

Nor should there be. My last Census form said I was a Jedi, (I was only 18 at the time, don't judge me!) this doesn't give me the right to turn up for a work wearing a light saber and them scream persecution when I'm told I cant.

Orlanth wrote:

Daily Mail made a meal of this, but the core of the case was sound. If dresscode is variable for some religions it should be variable accross the board.

See my point above.

Orlanth wrote:
You simply rejected the article because you have a hate on for the source. That is bad political thinking sir, all the papers string a line sometimes, and they all have their bias. The Daily Mail now gets more fingerpointing than the Sun and the Mirror combined, which I find rather puzzling actually.

I certainly don't. The Daily Mail thoroughly deserves the majority of the fingerpointing aimed at it. It is manipulative, one sided and far more interested in pushing Paul Dacres agenda than in reporting the news. I actually think its one of the most dangerous publications in the country. The Sun and Mirror are Red Tops and no one takes them seriously as a reputable journal of opinion. Its only interested in Sport, Titillation and cheap sensationalist stories.

The Mail on the other had takes itself far to seriously and ever worse its writers actually listened to in some cirlces. Hence it needs taking down a peg or 2.

I don't agree with anything just because the Mail says it. I disagree with the mail because a huge amount of its content is inaccurate and designed specifically to fuel the mobs persecution complex.

Orlanth wrote:
Oh really, which third of [evil] Tory Prime Minsters [sinisterly] rose to power this way?

You seem to have missed the point. I'm not calling the Tories evil. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the argument of calling Brown unelected as if its some sort of Evil Labour conspiracy. If fact, its perfectly legitimate and many PM's (from both parties) have come to office in this manner. John Major and Winston Churchill are 2 examples of the top of my head.

I'm not sure of the exact figures but my point still stands.

Orlanth wrote:
There was an army recruitment poster from the 70's which showed the four basic rights of the British people that the army defended by defending the borders. Yes, its army recruiting and thereby propoganda but, its interesting which rights were pointed out.

Freedom of expression
Freedom to vote
Freedom of faith and consceince
and Freedom to lampoon the government

The Freedom to lampoon the government looked out of place but it is more important than it looks. Blair is a good example, who had quote a 'Charles the first complex' and tolerated little critique. Prescott was even worse, it's not just them, many politicans and civil servants tend to be like that, they are tempted to believe they are above the law after they have held power for a while. It is part of the ugly deep inside of human nature.

Do you still beleive Tony Bliar over the Iraq WMD dossier? Which is where he got the name. If you do you will be pretty much alone.

Ermm ok. Perhaps I should rephrase my point. Sarcasm clearly doesn't come across well via the net.

My point is that people who use these phrases (Nu-liebore, Nu_laba, Mc Broon or Tony B-liar) are usually just an attempt to score points on the cheap. If you have a point to make then make sensibly it without resorting to bad puns. It just lowers the point being made to the level of school ground taunting and cheapens the credibility of the entire debate.

As to the hand being cut off, that was just a comical reference meaning they the couldn't type again and pollute the discussion further. It was being used for comic exaggeration, nothing more.

And for the record no I don't believe Tony Blair on the issue of WMD's, lets face it, apart from Melanie Phillips does anyone believe there were WMD's in Iraq? However I can only state this with the benefit of hindsight. I don't believe Blair deliberately mislead anyone, he simply used poor intelligence and, as a result, dew poor conclusions.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=502

Immigration is a good thing. Go to a place like Japan, that although I love in many ways, has very little immigration, and you see the drawbacks quickly.

Regarding the WMDs, a lot of people who should have known, such as the UN Weapons Inspectorate, said there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion.

They based their judgement on known factors such as the amount of weapons and equipment in the 90s, shelf life time of weapon components, and inspection reports.

Their advice was ignore by Blair and Bush, who quite obviously had decide to attack Iraq and needed a pretext. Hence the obvious fabrications of the 'dodgy dossier', the 45 minutes claim and the Nigerian Yellowcake shipments.

Anyway that's OT.

LuciusAR wrote:
The difference is that a hijab or a turban at all times are a requirement of their respective religions so there is a case for a exemption to be made. The wearing of a cross is not, therefore no need for a exemption. It was nothing more than professional victimization on the woman's part and whipping up middle England hysteria on behalf of the papers.

I can think of numerous biblical references as to why this person might feel obliged to wear a cross. Chritianity in its core form has no ritual strictures except for Communion and Baptism, however some have grown over time such as Quaker dress, wearing of hats in church. All based on various passages in scripture. The wearing of crosses is tradition rather than law, but is usually worn on the understanding that it is an open and undeniable expression of Christian identity. As Jesus commands his followers never to deny him, and to be transparent over who they are always many Christians wear a cross in order to put this point clearly, even in situations where they are forbidden to evangelise. The logic being, I cannot preach to the passengers therefore to keep the commandment I must wear a christian icon openly to show my true allegiance.

Some denominations take cross wearing seriously. Traditions are important, strictly speaking the Hadith where the dress code restrictions in Islam orginate is Islamic tradition rather than law as Islamic law begins and ends with the Koran. However Hadith traditions are in practice laws.

LuciusAR wrote:
Nor should there be. My last Census form said I was a Jedi, (I was only 18 at the time, don't judge me!) this doesn't give me the right to turn up for a work wearing a light saber and them scream persecution when I'm told I cant.

Flippancy will not help on such delicate issues. Putting Jedi on a census form is just a lot of fun, but ultimately its cosplay rather than religion no matter how many people join in the joke on the census forms.
One might ardently and legally found the Church of the Holy Dildo, but lines would be drawn on wearing icons of the faith.

Also some restrictions still apply to major established faiths. Sieks have a religious exemption for the daggers all male members of the faith must wear, and it is one of the few bypasses towards restrictions on carrying knives in general society. Even though Siekism is a major religion this is not acceptable on an aircraft.

Kilkrazy wrote:Regarding the WMDs, a lot of people who should have known, such as the UN Weapons Inspectorate, said there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion.

They based their judgement on known factors such as the amount of weapons and equipment in the 90s, shelf life time of weapon components, and inspection reports.

Their advice was ignore by Blair and Bush, who quite obviously had decide to attack Iraq and needed a pretext. Hence the obvious fabrications of the 'dodgy dossier', the 45 minutes claim and the Nigerian Yellowcake shipments.

Anyway that's OT.

I know I'm in danger of moving this more OT, but something did come to mind whilst reading this. How frustrating is it that a known crook gets away with their actions due to the lack of evidence, the people involved (the police & victims) have plenty of circumstantial evidence, but no real proof. When this happens everyone spouts off that it's crazy that this person got away with it, we all know they did it. I mean isn't OJ an example of this, or what about the people who are too afraid to leave their homes due to harressment (but can't prove it) or the cars vandalised by a group of kids, but again evryone knows they did it, but have no solid proof.

So surely if you were the aggrieved victim or a member of the victims family wouldn't you be happy if some "evidence" came to light that could prove your case. You could argue that case for WMD was a similar thing. The West knew he was up to something, it was obvious, but there was no solid proof, but then came a report that appeared to provide the evidence needed.

Just a thought.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Well I think there's a dispute about whether government is good at that, but thats another thread.

Doesn't this lead to the extreme corporatist vision though Polonius-privatizing profit but socializing the costs? If there were an environmental spill it would be the company's problem to fix. This is another type of spill.

Government also decides who enters and who doesn't-therefore definitely has a role in deciding if letting in that cheap/qualified labor is a good thing or not.

Oh wow all kinds of interesting topics here and viewpoints to explore but no time.

Environmental spills are negligence. Laying off redundant workers and hiring useful ones is good business. I think that business should do that, and I think you and I have different enough ideas about immigration that we probably won't agree, but having any expectation for corporations outside of what's best for the bottom line isn't just naive, it's asking the board of directors to renege in their fiduciary duties.

Actually thats not a correct statement. True accidental spills are accidents. Most pollution is calculated pollution as a by product of their operations. This pushes the costs onto the society unless that society forces those costs back onto the Company (in this circumstance via regulation and law suit). It could be argued that the social costs of layoffs could be redressed in similar manner. IE you can make your layoffs, but you also bear the costs of retraining.

Orlanth wrote:

LuciusAR wrote:
The difference is that a hijab or a turban at all times are a requirement of their respective religions so there is a case for a exemption to be made. The wearing of a cross is not, therefore no need for a exemption. It was nothing more than professional victimization on the woman's part and whipping up middle England hysteria on behalf of the papers.

I can think of numerous biblical references as to why this person might feel obliged to wear a cross. Chritianity in its core form has no ritual strictures except for Communion and Baptism, however some have grown over time such as Quaker dress, wearing of hats in church. All based on various passages in scripture. The wearing of crosses is tradition rather than law, but is usually worn on the understanding that it is an open and undeniable expression of Christian identity. As Jesus commands his followers never to deny him, and to be transparent over who they are always many Christians wear a cross in order to put this point clearly, even in situations where they are forbidden to evangelise. The logic being, I cannot preach to the passengers therefore to keep the commandment I must wear a christian icon openly to show my true allegiance.

Some denominations take cross wearing seriously. Traditions are important, strictly speaking the Hadith where the dress code restrictions in Islam orginate is Islamic tradition rather than law as Islamic law begins and ends with the Koran. However Hadith traditions are in practice laws.

Orlanth is indeed correct. There sects that require certain forms of dress, crosses, etc. as a definite religious requirement. Its no different.

Speaking of religious exemptions, Orlanth and I in agreement-Seventh Sign? Its all starting to add up...

And back to the storm in the Teacup created by The Daily Mail and it's various contempariries.

British Airways offered a very pleasent compromise of 'just don't have it on show, okay?' and little Miss Persecution-Complex decided this was not on and in fact the entire company was run by Muslims out to eat her children.

But then, the right wing gutter press are hardly noted for letting facts get in the way of a damned good scare monger.

Another example? In Britain, we have the Measles Mumps Rubella immunisation for all young children. Now, out of the entire medical profession, 1 Doctor. Count em, 1. Heather Mill can count it on her legs...1.. mentioned there could be a link to Autism. Rightwing Press grabs hold of it and makes out that having had the jab when I was a wean, it's a bloody miracle I'm not Autistic, because it always causes it. And Cancer. And might well turn me into a Gay Black Arab to boot!.

Even when the aforementioned Doctor completed his research and retracted his statement, they had the terrified Middle England by the throat, and weren't about to let go.

Responsibility? Not in a million years.

Of course in this case she isn't actually required to wear a cross at all.

She chose to and then tried, please excuse the pun, to portray herself as some form of martyr.

I was always tickled by the complete omission ( ..with the Mail it's so tempting to write "emission" instead) of the fact that

She was convinced that BA was anti-Christian, and nothing would dissuade her from that opinion, despite the company jumping through hoops trying to accommodate the many and varied religious demands being placed on it. Indeed, there is a BA Christian Fellowship group that did not support Eweida's fight, and confirmed that BA was already "making available facilities, time, work spaces, intranet use and supporting Christian charitable activities throughout the world"

It's probably also a bad idea to tell your gay co-workers that "it's not too late to be redeemed."

Indeed.

And just to illustrate how cheap the cheap shots are in this....

It was a Conservative Government that killed off most Industry in Britain, and then left the populations of areas dependant on said method of employment to rot.

And now apparently it's entirely Labour's fault.....

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

British Airways offered a very pleasent compromise of 'just don't have it on show, okay?' and little Miss Persecution-Complex decided this was not on and in fact the entire company was run by Muslims out to eat her children.

But then, the right wing gutter press are hardly noted for letting facts get in the way of a damned good scare monger.

So she wanted to wear a cross. What is this to you, or them? Miss Persecution-Complex indeed, you make it sound like she wanted to stab passengers with it.
Well the thread is about 'Rise of Hate', at least you are on topic.
Cut with the rabies please, she was expressing her faith in a non violent unhostile and unobtrusive way. Others can so why can't she, it is a simple matter of equality.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Another example? In Britain, we have the Measles Mumps Rubella immunisation for all young children. Now, out of the entire medical profession, 1 Doctor. Count em, 1. Heather Mill can count it on her legs...1.. mentioned there could be a link to Autism. Rightwing Press grabs hold of it and makes out that having had the jab when I was a wean, it's a bloody miracle I'm not Autistic, because it always causes it.

Surprise, surprise - HUGE increase in measles cases in the UK.

Wouldn't it be nice if the scaremongering press acknowledged what they've done here?

In a more on-topic vein, local news last night carried a story that Nick Griffin, the odious leader of the BNP, might be able to get a seat in the European parliament by standing here in the North-West region in the June elections - they estimate he'd need 8% of the total vote to get a seat, thanks to proportional representation. This is appalling. Considering that the voter turnout for European elections is so dismal, and that it's a certainty that every BNP supporter who can vote WILL vote, I fear the worst. I admit freely that I have never voted in a European election, but I damn well will next time. I just need to assess my tactical voting options, to give me the best chance of keeping this foul merchant out of parliament. (Just look at him - don't you just know that he dreams of torchlight parades, being addressed as "Leader", and having ranks of strapping young men in uniform looking up at him adoringly as he demonstrates the triumph of his will?)

Don't worry. Kilroy-Silk also went to Europe and succeeded only in getting told off time and again, and otherwise achieved precisely nothing.

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?

The story was embellished beyond belief, she has been proven to be a bit of a nutter, and facts were willfully ignored by the press.....

The fact she could not display a cross but others could display religious headgear is prima facae discrimination. Its all or none, and again - who exactly did it offend?

It's not about causing offence. It's about company rules and regulations as I said. It could have been a Crucifix, a Star of David, a Buddhist symbol, whatever, British Airways Staff are NOT to wear Jewelery at work, Religious Symbol or not. Female Sikh employees may wear there bracelets, as long as they are not on show. Same with aforementioned necklace. She flouted the rule and had it on display despite being asked, then told, not to.

This is why she was asked to remove it, or cover it up. Not because it might offend someone of a differing Religion.

Then no one else can wear religious clothing or any other item. Too bad so sad.

And that will get you hammered in the US by the awesome power of the EEOC for discrimination. I'm betting there's something like that in the UK.

She took it court, and was laughed out.

She took it to European Court of Human Rights. Was laughed out. Again.

Linky linky to original report. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm

And the eventual result. http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/01/09/43844/cross-row-british-airways-check-in-clerk-loses-religious-discrimination-case.html

European Court of Human Rights-

Never trust a supranational organization for, well anything.

No different to your Supreme Court really.

Oh wayyyyyy different.

SCOTUS has to abide by the Constitution (ok I know that seems like a techicality depending on what amendment). Its actually appointed by people we vote for.

I thought it was appointed by Senate and that? Or does the voting body only get to nominate, the, erm, nominees.

You know the Judges for the ECHR are apointed by the elected members of the European parliment right ?

Appointed by the Pres (elected) with the advice and consent of the Senate (elected despite jerrymandering)

More importantly (kicks the spolitght on) do you agree or disagree with this statement?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/230909.page#583106

I can just imagine the Dakka Gang in the post Zombie/apocalypse government meltdown. KillKrazy and Reds8n leading a ragtag fleet, running point with their premium bats (ok maybe Killkrazy has procured a nice Katana by now in which case-HE'S IN CHARGE), with Greeby and WhatWhat shepherding English Dakka newbs to the Safety Zone (Mexico), and bringing up the rear an Ale guzzling, bagpipe dragging, golf club wielding Mad Dog Grotsnik shouting incomprehensible Scot/British soccer hooligan slang.

reds8n wrote: You know the Judges for the ECHR are apointed by the elected members of the European parliment right ?

Are they themselves elected?

I didn't. Embarassingly, I'm not that up on the workings of Europe.

I mean, take the Euro. All the media tell is it's either good or bad, same with Politicians. They never bother to say why.

The European Parliament (Europarl or EP) is the only directly elected parliamentary institution of the European Union (EU). Together with the Council of the European Union (the Council), it forms the bicameral legislative branch of the Union's institutions and has been described as one of the most powerful legislatures in the world.[1] The Parliament and Council form the highest legislative body within the Union. However their powers as such are limited to the competencies conferred upon the European Community by member states. Hence the institution has little control over policy areas held by the states and within the other two of the three pillars of the European Union. The Parliament is composed of 785 MEPs (Member of the European Parliament), who serve the second largest democratic electorate in the world (after India) and the largest trans-national democratic electorate in the world (342 million eligible voters in 2004).[2][3][4]

It has been directly elected every five years by universal suffrage since 1979. Although the European Parliament has legislative power that such bodies as those above do not possess, it does not have legislative initiative, as most national EU parliaments do,[5] but it does in a de facto capacity (see Powers and functions below).[6] While it is the "first institution" of the European Union (mentioned first in the treaties, having ceremonial precedence over all authority at European level[7]), the Council has greater powers over legislation than the Parliament where codecision procedure (equal rights of amendment and rejection) does not apply. It has, however, had control over the EU budget since the 1970s and has a veto over the appointment of the European Commission.[5]

So.. as much as any of our glorious overlords can be said to be.

I'm sure there's the usual horsetrading, backroom deals etc etc over which judge gets appointed, from memory there's no actual restriction on nationality, so a German member could elect/nominate a French judge or whatever.

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.

cool.