Tuesday 12 July 2011

Other Stories in the News

Hidden between the lines of the Hacking Scandal are a couple of important other stories.


University Charges
1/3rd of university's have been given the go ahead to charge £9000 but the fees office. Students will be in uproar - while failing to see the bigger picture. This policy is going to cost the government - not save. As students will be earning more before they have to start repaying. The numbers going to university haven't been hugely effected, so there will still be far more graduates than jobs.

We need to seriously look at the goals we set - with UCAS trying to get the school league tables based on university attendance, more pressure is put on schools to get kids in to university, rather than looking at what is best for the student.

We need to remove the fallacy that our society has created, that if you don't go to university you have failed and look at life skills and the job market. University should be for the academic elite, what ever their social background - not for everybody we can cram in.

As I have said before - cut the number of places - increase the entry requirements, and fully fund them all. Degrees become valuable again and the government saves a fortune.


Equality Commission
The equality commission want the legal definition of discrimination expanded to include religion, as the result of 4 cases going through the courts.

For 2 of the cases I agree, though I would like to see the details.

A British Airways Clerk was sent home for refusing to take off a necklace with a cross. I have to agree with this one, would they have done it if it was a different religion, and what she was wearing had no bearing on her being able to perform her duties.

A nurse was given a desk job for similar reasons - I would be interested in the details of this, as they did not stop her working, and it could have been on hygiene grounds, with no one being allowed to wear necklaces - if this is the case I don't have an issue, if it was just because it was a cross then it is a different matter all together.

The next two are more complex.

A relationship councillor was sacked for refusing to give advice to gay people. So he was being discriminated against for discriminating against other people. Unlike the earlier two, this has a direct effect on his being able to do his job - something he was refusing to do. If his religion had said he couldn't give advice to black people, there would have been no question about his being fired - why should gays be any different?

The last one is similar, with a registrar refusing to conduct same sex civil ceremonies.

The question here is one of where should the line be drawn - I have some pretty specific opinions on this. If the clerk was insisting on wearing the necklace visibly, where there is a rule that no one is allowed to do this, then she doesn't have a leg to stand on, as long as she would have been able to place the pendant under her uniform.

For the nurse, the same apples - though there would be a hygiene reason not to be allowed to wear it at all (but that would have to apply to everyone and all jewellery, including wedding bands)

For the last too, I see no excuse - if a job is going to make you do something against your religious belief, take a different job. If you were in the police, and your religion said you could not take any form of action against another member of your religion - you would not be allowed to stay in the job - letting a criminal go because they were of the same religion would not be acceptable. If your religion says you are not allowed to drive, you don't take a job as a taxi driver.


Religion shouldn't be an excuse to flout general rules - as long as the rules have sound reasoning and don't discriminate specifically. Equally the law should come first (if the law says you cant carry a knife, and your religion requires you too - British law comes first, if the law is fundamentally wrong, it should be changed rather than bypassed for a small group).

If you are not allowed to discriminate against someone because of their religion, why should they be able to discriminate against you.

No comments: