Christian advising “faith in God” loses tribunal claim

It is still wrong.

There are innumerable images of Justice across the Western world where she is depicted blindfold. I agree that she is not invariably so (whereas she always has the sword and scales) and it is possibly a more recent development of her image. But it certainly exists.

*employment

Justice is not blind, she must see and hear what she is doing, this is a common error, if you visit the Central Criminal Courts you will see Justice is bare faced and vigilant, just like the emplyment tribunal that heard this case.

It is a factor, and no I did not say that. Both intent at the time of the action in addition to actual harmed caused or intended as a natural consequence of those actions would point to the appropriate punishment - because punishment it is. Perhaps something a little less damning may have been appropriate than Gross Misconduct.

Don't think it has ended here for this employee. Being sacked for Gross Misconduct will follow for the rest of his employable life in the same way as a thief or a violent person. I doubt if a future employer will have the energy we have on this forum to look into any mitigating factor or otherwise. Justice is blind for very good reasons, however she relies on honest people to present the facts correctly and without duplicity. I don't think that has happened here. But of course I'm guessing.

Richard... should the test then be one of malaevolence?

Never mind what tookplace... test the motivation?

But we don't know, that's the problem as pointed out earlier. Without this knowledge it is speculation - as thought provoking as this exercise is, we are all guessing.

This week several employees at the Inland Revenue have been sacked for discrimination by witholding benefit payments on racial grounds - systematic behaviour could be proved (the IR is to be commended how they dealt with rooting that out). One case I dealt with involved a medical practitioner smacking a patient in the mouth (arguably in frustration) - then proceeded to do a real good job stitching up the split. That received media attention but little else.

Wandsworth has no issue with matters of faith, they reference religious institions on their web site for example. My issue is the interpretation of Gross Misconduct. It should cover ranges of actions/non actions not matters of opinion. Facta, non verba!

This guy used words... "sticks and stones may break my bones... etc". However inappropriate (insensitive even) the words, was there intent to deceive, defame, threaten, defraud or occasion actual physical harm for some malaevolent motive. If you use Gross Misconduct for inappropriate comment, then where do any of us stand. Morevover, how do we then deal appropriately with those that undertake actions with an intent to achieve malaevolent goals.

Tammy, If thats true and he said her ilness was her fault for not beleiving in god, then yes he should lose his licence and be struck off.

I do think gross misconduct is a bit excessive, his comment was naive and poorly thought through, but it doesn't sound intentionally malicious.
Religion should have no place in medicine, law, public services and education (except on a purely academic level).
I'm an atheist and while I would have found his comment demoralising I wouldn't have wanted him fired, after all however misguided it was he meant well and that's all that matters.

What he obviously didn't consider is that to an atheist being told when your terminally ill and clinging to hope that your better off putting your faith in god is tantamount to saying " You have as much chance of surviving as the wombles have of being real"

Alan's a bit harsh calling Ruth odd, all religions are illegitimate and unfounded, that's why their faiths and not facts. I could say the same about scientific theory, until someone proves it their just an idea, but that doesn't mean they are a bad idea.
In the end we are all Odd. No two people in history are the same... that's what makes the world interesting.

Ian seems to be the first person to have spotted and noted that, far from being told to put her faith in God, this woman was allegedly told not to bother with doctors and that her illness may be her own fault for not believing in God. That is slightly different from someone offering to pray for you or suggesting that a belief in God might help. What this man seems to have done would amount to gross misconduct.

Alan

Please accept my apologies

If your comment is correct then you are absolutely , without any doubt, correct and I stand defeated in my stance.

I had not seen the transcription of the evidence that I am sure you will copy and post in your response. Brow beating with a religious standpoint and opinion while they ar ein a state of confusion and despair is certainly a different consideration to offering support and humane understanding and the support.

Please see below for the supporting evidence:

Morality? This is a sacking case where someone was brow beaten to death by a religious nutcase! How can that be moral?

Ruth... while I am sure that you can see from my comments above that I support you and your rights to your faith...

There is also a case for aguing that it is when your faith is questioned that you are prompted to explore it further in order to provide answers.

However...what seems to be forgotten in this conversation is that there is a difference between legitimate conversation and exploration of a subject; and the employment of a derisive attitude as a tool of argument.

However... discussing your own beliefs and the way other people perceive you (irrespective of their level of ignorance of the subject matter), does kind of sidestep the core issue that seems to be raising its ugly head here...

Alan is telling us that legally the finding must be correct on strictly legal grounds... (though having read through his comments I still wonder whether bidding farewell to someone might be construed as taking place after the interview had ended).

The remaining issue therefore is one of morality - not something our justice system usually concerns itself with.

I can only maintain that it is morally correct to offer someone in a bad situation words of comfort. To legislate against it is to criminalise common decency!

* because (sorry)

I am afraid I don't see the link between disability and religious beliefs? I don't discriminate so I am at a loss as to why others would on grounds as flimsy as these. I criticise and am free so to do, the practice not the individual. It is perfectly healthy for criticism to exist in society, otherwise we simply accept any old nonsense. Witches are fair game I am afraid becasue they are so ludicrous. Maybe in a hundred years or so they might have developed some credibiity but for now they reside alongside the Moonies and Scientologists. For a set of beliefs to be regarded in English law as a religion the belief structure must revolve around worship of a deity, accordingly rastafarianism and buddhism are not religions in law (or fact). Your friendly lawyer.

You see, I knew if I 'came out' as a witch I would receive offensive criticism from the very people who are telling me that I should shut up and put up with Christian proselytising. If I was from any other religion - if I'd said I'm a practicing Muslim, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon etc etc no one would have dared say anything remotely critical. But us witches are fair game. Unequal treatment or what?
It was clear from the start that this case was about more than some kindly person saying to someone 'I'll pray for you', and leaving it at that because - despite what you read in the Daily Mail - people don't get sacked for saying 'I'll pray for you'.
As a disabled person I've had to put up with Christians saying directly that I wouldn't be disabled if I prayed to God for forgiveness of my sins (yes, really). Having been disabled since birth and running the gauntlet of other children in mainstream education, I can just laugh off other people's disablist nonsense, and I do. Some other people (especially those who have just acquired an impairment) may not find it so easy.

Chris: -"there surely has to be some context - if you are told as part of the advice that they will pray for you that's one thing... if it is said as a parting gesture of kindness then surely it becomes something completely different -" -No, please refer to my adivce above, the entire interview is evidence.
"I am not sure our local mosque members would agree with you - it seems that there is a thin line between critisizm and religious intolerance." - No, they have to receive criticism as well and they do, not willingly admittedly but they do, and I am able toe nageg them on reasonable terms becasue even though we disagree on thigns we still respect and cherish each other.

Alan, there surely has to be some context - if you are told as part of the advice that they will pray for you that's one thing... if it is said as a parting gesture of kindness then surely it becomes something completely different -

I am not sure our local mosque members would agree with you - it seems that there is a thin line between critisizm and religious intolerance.

As with so much of our beurocracy... if you are correct in your assertions that kindness is a dismissable offense in any area of public service - then perhaps it is in these areas that our politicians should be looking when trying to find ways to improve the country without spending anything

If you look at the report Jane Blacklock referred to, it says

A spokesman for Wandsworth Council said: "We're delighted that the tribunal has found in our favour, supported the common sense and wholly reasonable way we handled this case and rejected the totally spurious and misleading claims that were made against us."

It is clear from this that there is certainly much more to the story than has been widely reported. If it really was a simple matter of a few kindly and supportive words being offered then a 'common sense and wholly reasonable' response would obviously not be to sack the employee. If his unfair dismissal claim was indeed 'spurious and misleading' then it is obvious that a lot more went on than has been reported.

The BBC report suggests that he subjected the woman to a '30-minute barrage' of his personal beliefs, including a view that she should not bother with doctors. I have read other reports that suggest he was aggressive and judgmental, suggesting that the woman's illness was the result of her sinfulness and refusal to believe in God. This is not what one would expect from a professional adviser when attending an appointment to discuss your housing situation. I think we would all agree that if THIS is an accurate representation of the behaviour then it clearly was inappropriate and DID constitute gross misconduct.

I would be very interested to read the transcript of the judgment to see the full facts that were presented at tribunal.

Chris, it would be helpful if you read the whole advice before reducing to one comment, the fact is that if you went to a police officer or a council officer and asked for legal assistance and was told that he/she would pray for you, that amounts to gross misconduct. Simples!

I am able and free to criticise anyone for any religious beleif, please read earlier message discussing fullest position.

Maybe we all need to take a deep breath and, as Chris says, "accept..... comments in the spirit that they are offered."

Sorry. I forgot to include this Question...

Alan... would you be kind enough to describe or define the practises that Ruth is involved in... that you refer to as "illegitimate" and possibly support the comment with logic?

Alan... does that not go against the philisophy that we have in this country that everyone does what they believe in?

I think that Muslims are odd. I personally might believe that their practises are ill concieved but if I said so in public I would be subject to the most terrible backlash and the law would support their right to do so.

Ruth has her beliefs. As it happens many of them are shared to one degree or another by many of the population who , while not making them a central part of their daily lives, do take them into account. Were this not the case, popular newspapers would not take the space to publish horoscopes (worthless or otherwise).

If you ask society what it thinks of witches you will get the response you describe... but if you ask society what they think of a group of people who value nature and believe that she has a contribution to make to their lives... you would get something quite different.

Ruth is quite justified in expecting the same tolerance and understanding that a Christian would expect.

If I went to Ruth with a particular problem... and she told me, with kindness, that I should have faith in mother earth (forgive me I know little about wicca), then I should surely accept her comments in the spirit that they are offered?

One other small point...

A previoius post said that the employee was wrong to have offered her comments, meant to support emotionally...

If we now live in a society where gestures of kindness or support are legislated against - then we are indeed in a bad place.

But that's just the point-you are odd. Judged nor by me or any other religious group but by society at large. If you wantvthat to change stop doing illegitimate nonsensical practices.

Sarah,
if I said to someone who was ill, I'll do you a tarot card reading, would you think I was being kind?
This is the point I make - Christians are allowed to behave in ways that members of other faith groups are not. I cannot openly practice my faith in society in the same way that a Christian can. I can't take my tarot cards around and offer readings for my clients in a business, (nor would I want to) but Christians think they can. When my brother (a church of England rector) attended my handfasting ceremony he didn't bring his daughter with him and stood outside the ring when the ceremony was taking place. If I said I'm not taking my son to a wedding because it's a Christian ceremony people would think I was odd to put it mildly.
I don't mind at all leaving my faith out of the workplace - it wouldn't occur to me to do otherwise. I just wish everybody else would do the same.