Lunacy lies with Government

Government minister Peter Hain calls British Airways “loopy” for not allowing a Christian member of staff to wear a small cross around her neck. Has there ever been a more blatant example of the pot calling the kettle less than white?

BA nor any other company is responsible for today’s minefield of race-relations rules.

It is generations of politicians like Peter Hain who have created the sort of nonsense that companies and ordinary members of the public have to negotiate.

Company dress codes such as the one at the centre of the BA row, are the direct result of successive governments endlessly dabbling and tinkering with issues of race and religion.

Time after time “loopy” rules are based on a silly desire to avoid offence where no offence exists.

In a sane world, and especially in an easy-going nation such as ours, any member of staff should be able to display a modest emblem of their faith, whether it be a crucifix, Sikh bangle, Muslim headscarf or Jewish Star of David.

The key word is modest. Wild-eyed evangelists branding “The End is Nigh” posters and Muslim women in veil or full burkha are clearly a step too far in the workplace.

In this case, BA seems to be infested with the Whitehall neurosis that a Christian symbol, as worn by check-in operator Nadia Eweida, might cause grave offence to people of other religions.

Poppycock. Most foreigners would find a crucifix in England no more shocking than a minaret in Saudi Arabia, and certainly not offensive.

Banning it, on the other hand, causes deep offence to some Christians.

British Airways may have got it wrong but they were only trying to conform with endless Government edicts from politicians who seem utterly out of touch with the realities of everyday life.

Loopy, Mr Hain? To find the real thing, take a look at some of your colleagues in Whitehall.

Law needs teeth, not muzzled dogs

Police dogs in North Wales are to be fitted with muzzles after a spate of compensation claims from suspects bitten by these brave, no-nonsense creatures.

Once again, the rights of criminals to go about their business without fear of injury pushes common sense into second place.

And yet somehow the muzzling of police dogs seems entirely appropriate.

After all, over the past few years we have seen our police muzzled, our border controls muzzled, our courts muzzled and our prisons muzzled.

This relentless, lunatic process of turning the entire criminal-justice system into a toothless joke goes on. No bark, no bite.