Me, Sharmi Chakrabarti and my Christian employees: a statement from UK taxpayer Mr Grumpy

"The message coming from Strasbourg is that although people are entitled to hold religious views, that right is severely limited in the workplace when it comes into conflict with the rights of other people. The judgement also hands considerable discretion to employers to set reasonable policies and then insist that employees follow them whatever their religious beliefs."

- Robert Pigott, Religious affairs correspondent, BBC News.

“British courts lost their way in her case and Strasbourg has actually acted more in keeping with our traditions of tolerance. Let’s hope that some of those who threaten to pull out of the ECHR remember this case in the future. However the Court was also right to uphold judgments in other cases that employers can expect staff not to discriminate in the discharge of duties at work.”

- Sharmi Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty

Dear Everyone,

As an employer I welcome yesterday's rulings from the ECHR and would like to take the opportunity of clarifying my employment policies as they relate to those working for me who are Christians.

I should begin by emphasising that I cannot speak for British Airways. Echoing Robert Pigott, however, I take the view that as a private company it should, I believe, in principle be free to exercise its own discretion with regard to its employment policies.

Let me now turn to the cases involving people who were working for me. As a Council Tax payer employing registry office staff.I expect registrars to keep abreast of the latest ideological trends and update their own views accordingly. Yes, Mrs Ladele, I'm you sure are warm and enthusiastic and the couples you married loved you, and I have taken due note of your ethnicity, but you can't seriously expect me to let you opt out of bits of your job just because you say they're against your conscience. I don't pay you to have a conscience, and how am I supposed to run a diversity policy if everybody insists on being different?

As for relationship counsellors, I emply them indirectly via the "charity" Relate ("Relate's 'voluntary' income is predominately made up of grants from statutory & other bodies"). This makes no difference to my expectations of them, which are exactly the same as for those who report to me directly  As an employer committed to nurturing diversity I expect those who work for me to think as I think.

It has been put to me that Mr Gary McFarlane is an able and conscientious counsellor, and that he belongs to an ethnic group which is underrepresented in Relate's workforce. Questions have been raised as to whether it was reasonable to dismiss him not because of anything he had done but because of what he said he would do in a hypothetical situation which had never actually arisen in the course of his work. It has been suggested that requests for sexual counselling from same-sex couples could easily have been fielded by his colleagues.

Mischievous comparisons have been drawn between the right of conscientious objection granted to pacifists during the war against Hitler and the non-negotiable requirement for Mr McFarlane to be prepared to teach gay couples how to do sex.

Look, I'M THE BOSS ROUND HERE AND I MAKE THE RULES, OK?

Phew, that feels better already.

With regard to the wonderful nurses who work for me in hospitals around the country, I will be brief. Anyone needing to be treated in an NHS hospital can rest assured that, whilst it may not be possible for busy nursing staff to provide them with drinks of water on a more than weekly basis, they will be absolutely safe from the health and safety risks associated with religious jewellery. I operate a strictly zero tolerance policy in this matter and I have zero sympathy with anyone falling foul of it. Good nurses are ten a penny - Shirley Chaplin please note.

Returning to the quotes with which I began, I am delighted to announce that Robert Pigott of the BBC is my Employee of the Month. This award is in recognition of his clear-sighted understanding of my prerogatives as an employer. Please join me in congratulating him.

I was going to share the award between Robert and Sharmi Chakrabarti, until it was pointed out to me that Sharmi doesn't actually work for me (though I am thrilled to be able to support her work through the charitable status enjoyed by the Civil Liberties Trust). Thank goodness for people like her who appreciate that whilst liberty is a fine thing in its proper place, those who accept employment from me leave their liberty (and their consciences) at the workplace door. Nothing must stand in the way of my ensuring that people like me are not permitted to work for me.

With my very best wishes for the year ahead,

Mr Grumpy

PS If you ever feel you would like to work for me, Sharmi, my office door is always open. Just reach out.

Cognitive dissonance: always in fashion

A random and entirely non-seasonal observation: when did models stop being exploited, objectified victims of the patriarchy and become feminist icons?

A happy and peaceful Christmas to anyone who should happen along. No promises, but I might manage a more substantial slab or two of curmudgeonliness before 2013's wage slavery gets under way.

Pussy Riot and the Derby Three

Very mixed feelings about Pussy Riot. I admire the thumbing of the nose at Putin, but not the calculated act of blasphemy aimed at the Orthodox faithful. And I'm nauseated at seeing them become pin-up girls for all the people who hit the panic button the moment some poor bloody infantryman in Afghanistan innocently throws a used Koran on the bonfire.

And lest there be any smugness among Brits regarding freedom of speech, allow me to remind you of the diligently forgotten case of the Derby Three. Seven years, possibly, for profaning a cathedral, two years for distributing leaflets that blaspheme against secular orthodoxy. Are we that much freer than the Russkies?

Update: so they've got two years, precisely the same as Ihjaz Ali got for "stirring up hatred" with his anti-gay leaflets. My question is answered.

What's in a name?

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a jobbing journalist at a loss for a topic now the Olympics are over must be in want of the annual baby names survey. This year your licence fee has helped fund a truly outstanding specimen...

But parents choosing a name for aspirational reasons need to think about how it will go down in the playground, says Scarlet Brady, editor of the modern parenting magazine Gurgle.

"You can wrap up all your hopes and dreams in a name but have to be careful that you don't put all of that on your child's shoulders."

How a name rolls off the tongue is an often overlooked reason for why names have changed. Today's more tolerant society seems to prefer "softer sounds" like Charlie and Maisie over harsher sounding names like Reginald and Gertrude.

The Reverend Rosie Harper, vicar of Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire, says parents look for different qualities in boys' and girls' names.

Parents still like Bible names for boys - there are five in the top 12 - Thomas, James, Joshua, Jacob and Samuel. But the highest-placed girl's Biblical name is Hannah at number 41.

"The Biblical names for boys are macho warrior blokes. They all have gravitas. Whereas what's chosen for girls tends to be Victorian names linked to image. They're not empowering, they're pretty names like Isabel and Olivia."

The disappearance of Mary is part of this trend. It is perhaps too associated with Catholicism and the Virgin Mary for many parents in England and Wales.

There's some wonderful cognitive dissonance here. We are a "more tolerant society"... but be careful not to give your sprog too outlandish a name, lest he/she be given hell in the playground. And we draw the line at tolerating Catholicism, it seems.

But let me draw your attention especially to the Reverend Rosie Harper and her contention that "[t]he Biblical names for boys are macho warrior blokes". Hmmm. By my reckoning we have one patriarch (whose machismo was of a more procreative than martial character, apart from his wrestling bout with the angel), one prophet, two entirely non-violent Apostles and just one authentic macho warrior bloke. A score of 20% would suggest that Ms Harper might usefully spend a little more time with her Bible.

It might, among other things, help her out with one or two "empowering" names for girls. There are plenty of Judiths in my pre-feminist generation, a fact which doesn't altogether square with her thesis, but there can be little hope of the name returning to favour within the next 50 years. Nevertheless, there is still scope for her to promote empowerment of a no less radical kind. Jael Harper has a certain ring to it. A somewhat chavvy ring, admittedly (and let's face it, the Book of Judges contains pretty chavvy stuff), but surely that will not deter such a determinedly trendy and right-on vicar.

Seriously though, what a perfect vignette of what Andrew Marr has acknowledged to be the BBC's "cultural liberal bias". A candyfloss piece needs filling out with a quote from a vicar. Who gets the call? A Home Counties feminist whose time at theological college seems to have taught her more about empowerment than about the contents of the Bible.

Or am I being unfair to the BBC? Is Ms Harper by now an entirely typical specimen of the Anglican clergy?

The inconvenience of democracy

Via Daniel Hannan I came across a bleak assessment of Europe's prospects written in June by Martin Kettle. Kettle is a Guardianista of the better sort, but even so I was struck by the way this passing remark reveals perhaps rather more than the author intended:-

'Any commentator who forecast victory for the AV referendum should not quote himself too proudly.'

Time to elect a new people?