An old story, shamelessly misrepresented by the press and religous pressure groups, and the PR badly handled by the airline.
The issue was never with the religious aspect of the cross, but with the fact that the uniform code does not allow *any* jewellery of that type to be worn: cross, star, hand of fatima, anything. This point seems to have been missed by those who seek to make an issue of something that isn't.
It's a typical "PC gone mad" straw man.
2006-12-08 10:36:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by hailesaladdie 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
British airways i experience must have a component of their contracts that state's uniform technique. i does not have concept that presently a bypass must be considered as a offensive piece of jewellery. regrettably when you're literally not complying with their techniques, then they do have the right to sack/droop the worker. because of this we are given contracts to signal, only so as that they are masking their backs, and also you masking yours that you've study and understood it. That way their are not any misunderstandings!!
2016-11-30 08:14:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by jaffar 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Old story. Typical BA. Who remembers them being done for hiring thugs to beat up the ex-cop after he complained about glass in his in flight meal!??!
2006-12-08 10:30:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by minisandmoto 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
That is why they are call British Airways.
Could not differentiate between fantasy and reality in planet of apes.
2006-12-09 00:24:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
some people know how to discriminate to the point of stupidity
2006-12-08 10:29:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by elhodgie 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Good old BA done it again.
2006-12-08 23:19:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Ollie 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
well this a christian country so of course we can't wear christian symbols
blame the goverment
2006-12-09 02:28:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by liam0_m 5
·
0⤊
0⤋