Richard Aust's newest comments

Is this a step too far - an unintended consequence of the legislation to prevent religious discrimination? Anti-hunt opinions cannot amount to a religion in the normal sense of the word.

That behaviour of THT really is bad. Good luck to Mr Smith.

This sort of case brings H&S law into disrepute.
How stupid to stand on a toilet bowl.
So now there has to be a risk assessment for going to the toilet?

There is well established research which proves that having a telephone conversation whilst driving has a serious impact on the level of concentration of the driver. It actually makes little difference whether the phone is hands-free or not. It is plain dangerous even though we have probably all done it.
The distraction of a phone call is far greater than a conversation with someone else in the car, even the children misbehaving.

The law is not wrong but it is difficult to enforce because it depends upon being caught in the act by a policeman or the result of an investigation after an accident (by which time it's too late). We all see people using their 'phones whilst driving so perhaps an easy reporting process would help.

As for technology which can find a phone within 3 square metres of its actual location - pure fantasy. Someone has been watching too many episodes of Spooks. The triangulation of the transceiver masts is not that accurate. Accuracy can be as precise as 100m in central London (where there are many cell masts) and as inaccurate as 10km in the Scottish Highlands(where there are few cell masts).

Shame. NHS managers are losing any sense of humour and patient understanding. I thought the NHS was promoting a holistic approach to recovery which would include patients having the odd moment of pleasure.

Clearly there are people in the NHS who have lost their sense of humour. Must be a very sad organisation to work for. And what a petty reason to discipline.

Paul. Where staff work different hours on different days it is better to express holiday entitlement in hours. Then when one of your staff books a Saturday off they take 5 hours. If they take a full week off they book a full week's hours (whatever the 5.5 days amounts to).

So the Trust says that 'The Trust said the decisions on pay would be discretionary and would not be applied to people with long-term illnesses or a disability'. Surely these people should be included in those not given a pay rise because, regardless of the reason for their sickness absence they would not have been contributing to the services the Trust provides and their work needing to be covered by those who are at work. The Trust presumably wishes to reward those who are fully contributing.
It could certianly be a legal headache but a sensible objective nonetheless.

Having said that, it seems strange that the public sector is still assuming that pay rises will be given, and paid for out of our taxes, whilst vast numbers of us in the private sector haven't seen pay increases for some time.

I suspect the differences are more to do with lifestyle choices and attitudes to personal health (smoking, drinking, exercise, diet etc) rather than occupation. I'm sure overworked and stressed management and professional employees also want to be able to enjoy their hard earned retirement.
And who is to decide whether a job is manual or not? And what about people who change jobs?
Overall not one of Ucatt's better statements.

Perhaps in the current economic and social climate it would be better to remove all maternity pay. Parents-to-be would then think twice about having children until they can be sure of affording them. Hopefully the birth rate would come down. With fewer people putting demands on natural resources there would be less CO2 emission and waste disposal problems and possibly reverse the climate changes. We end up with a better World. A win-win situation!

I think there is a serious misunderstanding here. Offering to pray for someone is not the same as using your position to spread beliefs.
Having said that, if it were not for the Christian missionaries of the past we would not be living in the free, democratic, educated, healthy and relatively well-off society we now enjoy.

Lynne Featherstone said that 'In the delivery of public services – you have to do the job and if there are elements of the job that you cannot do in all conscience – then it isn't the job for you'. This is clearly wrong - doctors have the right not to carry out abortions.

No wonder he was ostracised by colleagues with a history like that! How can he possibly carry out his job as a police officer with all that baggage? And what a waste of tax-payer money in both compensation, legal costs and management time.

People like Mr Virdi do nothing to help race relations.

In answer to AM, it unfortunate that the word 'homophobia' is being hurled around as a term of abuse by homosexuals. The word actually means: fear of men. There is nothing bigotted about holding the opinion that homosexual acts are wrong. It is a moral issue. The behaviour is either right or wrong. Just because it feels good for those who enjoy it doesn't make it right. To go down any other route will lead to anarchy.

There is an important difference between discrimination between right and wrong and discrimination between people in the provision of employment or provision of services. Perhaps it's the bigotry of the homosexual community that needs to be addressed.

Yet again we see Christians being unfairly treated for standing by their beliefs. Society has lost it's ability to discriminate between right and wrong, good and bad. Absolute standards have become ignored. It has become common practice to accuse a person of being 'homophobic' and using that as a term of abuse. If a person believes that homosexual sexual activity is wrong (and in spite of the very vocal 'gay' lobby I suspect most people disapprove but are afraid to say so) then they should be allowed to work within that contstraint and not be mistreated.

If it weren't for the Christian beliefs of our predecessors we wouldn't have the education, health, justice and freedoms which we do now. Our current society attacks Christianity at it's peril.

In the UK we are very lazy about battery recycling. Most people just throw them into general rubbish. Perhaps part of the solution is to ensure that any store selling batteries also has a recycling facility. When in Switzerland recently I was impressed to find battery recycling bins in a supermarket.

There is a significant difference between marriage and civil partnership - the former being supported by Christian Churches whereas the latter is generally not.
It's not a matter of homophobic bigotry but a matter of accuracy.
There is no conflict between not condoning homosexuality and loving your neighbour in the Christian sense.
As for 'How does this discriminate?' - like Kevin I'm not sure about that.

There are 18 countries listed altogether - at various stages of EU investigation - including the UK.
Perhaps this is a reflection of a mini rebellion against the centralised dictats from the EU.

My thoughts as wewll Fleur. In it's desperate attempts to be 'politically correct' successive governments - mainly Labour - have lost all sense of moral standards.

One of the main reasons we are seeing the gradual breakdown in the stability of British society is the breakdown of the family unit. Successive governments have introduced a range of legislative changes undermining the role and stability of the family unit. There will always be the need for some people to work on a Sunday but that should be the exception, and their choice, but not the rule. The forced opening on Sunday of yet more shops is a bad move, whether they are Christian bookshops or any other.