Jewellery can be a risk.
My experience of hospitals and other institutions tells me that rings, ear-jewellery, bangles, bracelets, necklaces and so on should be removed or at least covered with tape.
I think it is sensible. (Although like most things can be taken to an extreme.)

Ordinarily, I'd say letting her wear a crucifix would be harmless. But if the requirements of her job mean that ANY necklaces are out, because of safety reasons, then she should stop whining and get on with it. What would she say if a delirious patient hurt her by grabbing at her necklace? Would she then try to sue the hospital authority for being injured at work?

My MiL's a Christian, but she doesn't feel the need to wear a cross at all times. This woman's just trying it on - and I bet it's because she's one of those who think other faiths have too much leeway given to them.

I am torn over this one, cos while I accept that jewellery can be a problem in  some environments , I feel that this is a step too far. Plus I wonder if these sort of restrictions and judgements are being applied across the board??

Are headscarves and turbans still allowed?

I agree with Deman, she's just whinging

spot on:

Following the tribunal decision Ms Chaplin issued a statement saying: “I would like to thank my legal team, Paul Diamond and the Christian Legal Centre for courageously taking this case on and would like to state on record that the decision to press ahead with this case was mine and mine alone. I fight on and I fight to win the right for Christians to live out their faith in Britain today – anything less would be a negation of my Christian duty.”

We don't have free speech in this country - never have had.


Having said that: I don't see the problem here. It was clearly a Health and Safety issue, and she was treated the same as everyone-else. Her claim that  being prevented from having her crucifix on display would ''violate her faith'' is ridiculous. As the trbunal chairman pointed out, wearing a crucifix was not a Christian requirement.

I don't believe that there is any suggestion that the woman is being asked to remove her cricifix on religious grounds, but because of the potential risk of wearing a necklace whilst treating patients.  When I was in hospital a couple of years ago, none of the staff wore bracelets or necklaces, and I would not have been particularly happy to have had a nurse's necklace dangling in my face when she bent over me.  As Demantoid said, there is also the danger to the nurse if a patient were to grab her necklace and twist it, as well as the possiblity that it would get damaged if she wasn't choked.  Apart from that, surely chains could harbour all sorts of germs?  I have always been under the impression that nurses were only permitted to wear one wedding ring for work, which should be covered with tape? 

There is nothing in the Christian faith which says that the wearing of any jewellery is compulsory and I really think that there are times when it's not appropriate to make a stand for what you perceive as your rights.  Perhaps this daft woman would be better off getting on with her work and abiding by her employer's rules rather than trying to whip up hysteria about religious discrimination.

If she had worn a a heart on a chain  would she still have been told to remove it or was it because it was a cross,it should be all or nothing.

You're right, but of course the nurse and her supporters are trying to portray it as a religious issue. 

I found the BBC article on this interesting:
"The NHS trust's uniform and dress code prohibits front-line staff from wearing any type of necklace in case patients try to grab them.

It offered Mrs Chaplin the compromise of wearing her cross pinned inside a uniform lapel or pocket, but she said being asked to hide her faith was "disrespectful".

She said the hospital had rejected any of the compromises she had suggested, such as wearing a shorter chain."


So - after the NHS explained that they don't allow any form of necklace, her "compromise" was "a shorter chain"? The more I read about this, the more I'm drawn to the comments from the bloke from the Secular Society:
"This is the latest in a long line of costly, vexatious and manipulative cases brought by religious activists to create the impression that Christians are being discriminated against at work. They are an attempt to undermine equality laws and gain special privileges for Christians at work."

Yes. The Hospital's dress code prevents front-line staff from wearing any necklace.

I am a lifelong Christian and readily admit that I am uneasy about what seems to be an increasing secular country. Having said that, as others have pointed out there is nothing in our faith which makes the wearing of crosses mandatory. Yes, we should be open about being Christian and not secretive, but that doesn't require wearing reliigious symbols at all times. I doubt if Ms Chaplin wears her cross in her bath. So although I respect her views, I think she has taken her legal case more to make a point, particularly as the hospital had offered her an alternative office job where she would have been permitted to contimue to wear her cross.

Of course she would have been told to remove it.  The NHS trust she works for do not allow any jewellery to be worn.  But if she had made a stand over a heart on a chain, that wouldn't have been nearly as newsworthy because it wouldn't have been possible to manipulate it into yet another religious discrimination row.

In that case, I think she's being unreasonable and deserved to lose the case.

Actually, I never take my jewellery off in the bath or shower.  The only time I ever take any of my chains or bracelets off is when I set off the metal detectors at airports  

I cannot remove my chastity belt.
I've tried and tried and tried.......

you need a good locksmith.....

Thank you Eugene that is fair enough then..

Deman you are too kind.
I will inform you of my progress.

This nurse has been wearing her crucifix every day at work for over 30 years, why should it suddenly be a hazard?  Also as the wearing of the crucifix is obviously important to her do we have the right to question the importance of this to her?

Having recently been a patient in a hospital for 2 months, I am very much aware that the NHS is controlled by the Heatlh & Safety legislation which gives ZERO room for any discretion. If there is a theoretical risk, let alone a likely risk, then only a complete removal of the risk is acceptable.

Whilst in hospital, one evening another patient repeatedly coughed and sneezed in my face. I asked a nurse if I could gargle with either some mouthwash or some diluted TCP liquid in her presence. She refused as only my doctor could prescribe such treatment and he would not be available until the next day. As a result, in a few days I came down with a very bad cold with considerable catarrh problems whcih resulted in a very bad cough which lasted a month - one bout of coughing nearly resulted in me choking to death.

Health and Safety rulings aren't always implemented properly - I've fallen foul of a "sudden" tightening-up of procedure myself. The thing is, if the procedure has been in place and your aware of it, you can't complain if you're suddenly caught out. What's really important is that once the hospital starts implementing a policy, they are seen to do so impartially across the board. The hospital had previously ordered Sikh employees to remove wrist bangles, and there had been action regarding hijabs, so they couldn't be seen to be giving Christians special treatment.


However, after reading a bit about this case, it does seem to me that what this nurse (or at any rate her supporters) is trying to do is get special treatment because she's a Christian (while at the same time acting as if she's being victimised), and that's unacceptable.

Does anyone know who paid costs?

I guess the legal costs were carried by the Christian Legal Centre itself which is a group of solicitors and the like. The Centre was set up to look at proposed legislation and to take on legal cases which comes to its attention where the Christain faith is seen to be potentially under attack or where Christian values are being questioned. The Centre appears to be financed by donations from supporters.

I am sure I cannot be the only one who thinks that the 'Health and Safety' issue is being grossly over implemented.  Life is always going to be full of risks of one sort or another, its madness to think that you can just protect everyone from every risk.  A more common-sense approach is called for.  I am sure that in this sort of case where the risk seems to be assessed as being a health hazard for the nurse in question, ie a patient could grab it and strangle her, this seems to be an over-protective attitude.  She is a grown woman, she can assess the risk for herself.

In a hospital setting jewellery would be seen as a hazard to staff and patient alike, surely?

It's probably to stop them being sued as much as anything else... and as Growly said earlier, as a patient, I wouldn't appreciate having a nurse's necklace in my face/getting in the way when they were trying to carry out procedures

There are hospitals here where some of the staff are nuns and wear a crucifix....To the best of my knowledge there's not been any incidents where either staff or patients were hurt.

It's pretty standard in most hospitals now i reckon that only a wedding band or bangle, and small stud earrings are permitted on the wards.. some dress codes even state that fob watches if worn must be inside a pocket. Makes perfect sense that she shouldn't be allowed a necklace, be it a religious symbol or not.