good evening and welcome to another AA grumpy column.
i was unsure wether to post this as religous news or bizzare news
but anyway here it is enjoy....
A CHURCHGOING bus driver refused to drive a bus bearing a poster reading ’There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and go and enjoy your life'.
Committed Christian Ron Heather went on strike for three days in protest at his bus company employers putting the controversial advertising slogan on the side of their vehicles.
There are 800 buses and 1,000 Tube posters nationwide which have adopted the adverts designed by writer Ariane Sherine to combat aggressive religious posters on public transport.
Ron’s company First Buses have plastered the slogan on 20 of their vehicles ferrying passengers around his route in Southampton, Hants.
Religious Ron, 62, who has worked for the company since 2004, said: “I had already heard about them in London and I was hoping they were not coming to Southampton because I did not want to have to make a stand.
"I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face my first reaction was shock horror.
“I felt that I could not drive that bus, I told my managers and when they said they had not got another one I thought I better go home, so I did.
“I think it was the starkness of the advert that implied there was no God.
Married Ron was called into a meeting with senior managers and agreed to go back into work providing they ensured he would only have to drive the buses if there were no others available.
A First spokeswoman said: “As a company we understand Mr Heather’s views regarding this atheist bus advert and we are doing what we can to accommodate his request not to drive the bus concerned.
“Mr Heather accepts though that he may need to drive one of these buses if no other vehicle is available for him.
“As an organisation we do not endorse any of the products or sentiments advertised on our buses.
"The content of this advert has been approved by the Advertising Standards Agency and therefore it is capable of being posted on static sites or anywhere else.
"We advise anyone who has an issue regarding the content of the advert to contact the ASA directly.
AAG
WELL WE ALL HAVE OUR CROSS TO BEAR :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
pantoandy;1110616 wrote: good evening and welcome to another AA grumpy column.
i was unsure wether to post this as religous news or bizzare news
but anyway here it is enjoy....
A CHURCHGOING bus driver refused to drive a bus bearing a poster reading ’There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and go and enjoy your life'.
Committed Christian Ron Heather went on strike for three days in protest at his bus company employers putting the controversial advertising slogan on the side of their vehicles.
There are 800 buses and 1,000 Tube posters nationwide which have adopted the adverts designed by writer Ariane Sherine to combat aggressive religious posters on public transport.
Ron’s company First Buses have plastered the slogan on 20 of their vehicles ferrying passengers around his route in Southampton, Hants.
Religious Ron, 62, who has worked for the company since 2004, said: “I had already heard about them in London and I was hoping they were not coming to Southampton because I did not want to have to make a stand.
"I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face my first reaction was shock horror.
“I felt that I could not drive that bus, I told my managers and when they said they had not got another one I thought I better go home, so I did.
“I think it was the starkness of the advert that implied there was no God.
Married Ron was called into a meeting with senior managers and agreed to go back into work providing they ensured he would only have to drive the buses if there were no others available.
A First spokeswoman said: “As a company we understand Mr Heather’s views regarding this atheist bus advert and we are doing what we can to accommodate his request not to drive the bus concerned.
“Mr Heather accepts though that he may need to drive one of these buses if no other vehicle is available for him.
“As an organisation we do not endorse any of the products or sentiments advertised on our buses.
"The content of this advert has been approved by the Advertising Standards Agency and therefore it is capable of being posted on static sites or anywhere else.
"We advise anyone who has an issue regarding the content of the advert to contact the ASA directly.
AAG
WELL WE ALL HAVE OUR CROSS TO BEAR :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
Who or what group is paying for the advertising on the buss?
i was unsure wether to post this as religous news or bizzare news
but anyway here it is enjoy....
A CHURCHGOING bus driver refused to drive a bus bearing a poster reading ’There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and go and enjoy your life'.
Committed Christian Ron Heather went on strike for three days in protest at his bus company employers putting the controversial advertising slogan on the side of their vehicles.
There are 800 buses and 1,000 Tube posters nationwide which have adopted the adverts designed by writer Ariane Sherine to combat aggressive religious posters on public transport.
Ron’s company First Buses have plastered the slogan on 20 of their vehicles ferrying passengers around his route in Southampton, Hants.
Religious Ron, 62, who has worked for the company since 2004, said: “I had already heard about them in London and I was hoping they were not coming to Southampton because I did not want to have to make a stand.
"I was just about to board and there it was staring me in the face my first reaction was shock horror.
“I felt that I could not drive that bus, I told my managers and when they said they had not got another one I thought I better go home, so I did.
“I think it was the starkness of the advert that implied there was no God.
Married Ron was called into a meeting with senior managers and agreed to go back into work providing they ensured he would only have to drive the buses if there were no others available.
A First spokeswoman said: “As a company we understand Mr Heather’s views regarding this atheist bus advert and we are doing what we can to accommodate his request not to drive the bus concerned.
“Mr Heather accepts though that he may need to drive one of these buses if no other vehicle is available for him.
“As an organisation we do not endorse any of the products or sentiments advertised on our buses.
"The content of this advert has been approved by the Advertising Standards Agency and therefore it is capable of being posted on static sites or anywhere else.
"We advise anyone who has an issue regarding the content of the advert to contact the ASA directly.
AAG
WELL WE ALL HAVE OUR CROSS TO BEAR :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
Who or what group is paying for the advertising on the buss?
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
Good on Mr Heather for standing up for his principles. The newspaper report has tried to turn him into a joke - but then it's probably difficult for many parts of the media industry to comprehend that principles exist.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
AussiePam;1110627 wrote: Good on Mr Heather for standing up for his principles. The newspaper report has tried to turn him into a joke - but then it's probably difficult for many parts of the media industry to comprehend that principles exist.
He is carrying his principles to the extreme by refusing to drive the bus. Would he stop reading news papers if discovered the owners were atheists, not patronize a particular store, not eat certain foods. He is an example of religious convictions run amuck.
He is carrying his principles to the extreme by refusing to drive the bus. Would he stop reading news papers if discovered the owners were atheists, not patronize a particular store, not eat certain foods. He is an example of religious convictions run amuck.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
Lon;1110657 wrote: He is carrying his principles to the extreme by refusing to drive the bus. Would he stop reading news papers if discovered the owners were atheists, not patronize a particular store, not eat certain foods. He is an example of religious convictions run amuck.
Spot on Lon. However, under British law it would be a beach of his human rights to ask him to do anything in which he had a conflicting interest. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Spot on Lon. However, under British law it would be a beach of his human rights to ask him to do anything in which he had a conflicting interest. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
Lon;1110657 wrote: He is carrying his principles to the extreme by refusing to drive the bus. Would he stop reading news papers if discovered the owners were atheists, not patronize a particular store, not eat certain foods. He is an example of religious convictions run amuck.
No, I don't agree. It's not the same thing at all. He would be driving a moving advertisement (a very in your face one) for something he disagrees with. He hasn't threatened to nuke the hell out of the country this has occurred in, nor is he about to embark on civil disobedience, or inciting others to possibly murder anyone. He took the matter up with the appropriate authorities and appears to have consented to a reasonable compromise. This is not obsessive bigotry and it is not at all like the other examples you stated. I'm not saying I agree with his opinions. Just that I admire him for standing up for them in a reasonable way.
No, I don't agree. It's not the same thing at all. He would be driving a moving advertisement (a very in your face one) for something he disagrees with. He hasn't threatened to nuke the hell out of the country this has occurred in, nor is he about to embark on civil disobedience, or inciting others to possibly murder anyone. He took the matter up with the appropriate authorities and appears to have consented to a reasonable compromise. This is not obsessive bigotry and it is not at all like the other examples you stated. I'm not saying I agree with his opinions. Just that I admire him for standing up for them in a reasonable way.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
AussiePam;1110762 wrote: No, I don't agree. It's not the same thing at all. He would be driving a moving advertisement (a very in your face one) for something he disagrees with. He hasn't threatened to nuke the hell out of the country this has occurred in, nor is he about to embark on civil disobedience, or inciting others to possibly murder anyone. He took the matter up with the appropriate authorities and appears to have consented to a reasonable compromise. This is not obsessive bigotry and it is not at all like the other examples you stated. I'm not saying I agree with his opinions. Just that I admire him for standing up for them in a reasonable way.
Our buses are a constant source of advertising almost daily. Every day, there has to be offence some-where. The Saudi passenger offended by an ad on the bus for alcohol. The vegetarian driver offended by an ad for the meat market. The cancer victem offended by the ad for ciggarettes. The blue-rinse brigade offended by an ad of Beckham in his pants. The hetrosexual offended by an ad for Lesbian rights.
He should have realised this when he took the job. I'm sorry Pam, but i'm sick of seeing this country pay out compensation from the tax-payers pockets because some-one is 'offended'. We have just had another farcical case in the courts of a muslim looking for a pay out because he was asked to move alcohol in his supermarket job that involved, moving alcohol.
Our buses are a constant source of advertising almost daily. Every day, there has to be offence some-where. The Saudi passenger offended by an ad on the bus for alcohol. The vegetarian driver offended by an ad for the meat market. The cancer victem offended by the ad for ciggarettes. The blue-rinse brigade offended by an ad of Beckham in his pants. The hetrosexual offended by an ad for Lesbian rights.
He should have realised this when he took the job. I'm sorry Pam, but i'm sick of seeing this country pay out compensation from the tax-payers pockets because some-one is 'offended'. We have just had another farcical case in the courts of a muslim looking for a pay out because he was asked to move alcohol in his supermarket job that involved, moving alcohol.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
AussiePam;1110762 wrote: No, I don't agree. It's not the same thing at all. He would be driving a moving advertisement (a very in your face one) for something he disagrees with. He hasn't threatened to nuke the hell out of the country this has occurred in, nor is he about to embark on civil disobedience, or inciting others to possibly murder anyone. He took the matter up with the appropriate authorities and appears to have consented to a reasonable compromise. This is not obsessive bigotry and it is not at all like the other examples you stated. I'm not saying I agree with his opinions. Just that I admire him for standing up for them in a reasonable way.
Would you feel the same way if a bus driver refused to drive a bus that advertised liquor or tobacco, or showgirls with to much cleavage? How about medical clinics that might do abortions?
The bus driver is just that, a bus driver. He is certainly entitled to his religious convictions but refusing to drive the bus is hypocritical because I am sure we could find other examples in his day to day living wherein he has not sussed out a particular action as being against his beliefs.
Would you feel the same way if a bus driver refused to drive a bus that advertised liquor or tobacco, or showgirls with to much cleavage? How about medical clinics that might do abortions?
The bus driver is just that, a bus driver. He is certainly entitled to his religious convictions but refusing to drive the bus is hypocritical because I am sure we could find other examples in his day to day living wherein he has not sussed out a particular action as being against his beliefs.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
Lon;1110776 wrote: Would you feel the same way if a bus driver refused to drive a bus that advertised liquor or tobacco, or showgirls with to much cleavage? How about medical clinics that might do abortions?
The bus driver is just that, a bus driver. He is certainly entitled to his religious convictions but refusing to drive the bus is hypocritical because I am sure we could find other examples in his day to day living wherein he has not sussed out a particular action as being against his beliefs.
Well said.
Anyone who takes a job knowing the buses are a constant source of advertising is a hypocrite.
If the advert was placed in hios church then he'd have my sympathy. This country is a muli=ethnic community of all races and religions. The moment we start to pander to Christianity extremists, we start pandering to Islamic extremists. They are no different when it comes to principles.
The bus driver is just that, a bus driver. He is certainly entitled to his religious convictions but refusing to drive the bus is hypocritical because I am sure we could find other examples in his day to day living wherein he has not sussed out a particular action as being against his beliefs.
Well said.
Anyone who takes a job knowing the buses are a constant source of advertising is a hypocrite.
If the advert was placed in hios church then he'd have my sympathy. This country is a muli=ethnic community of all races and religions. The moment we start to pander to Christianity extremists, we start pandering to Islamic extremists. They are no different when it comes to principles.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
I don't care enough about the subject to go on arguing just to go on arguing. You win.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
aussiepam;1110835 wrote: i don't care enough about the subject to go on arguing just to go on arguing. You win.
chicken
chicken
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
lon;1110877 wrote: chicken
no
duck
no
duck
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
AussiePam;1110835 wrote: I don't care enough about the subject to go on arguing just to go on arguing. You win.
Shame shame Pam-----if you cared enough to answer the post on this subject you should care enough to stand by your very own statements. There is no argument. It's called discussion and debate. You gave up to soon.
Shame shame Pam-----if you cared enough to answer the post on this subject you should care enough to stand by your very own statements. There is no argument. It's called discussion and debate. You gave up to soon.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
Lon;1110914 wrote: Shame shame Pam-----if you cared enough to answer the post on this subject you should care enough to stand by your very own statements. There is no argument. It's called discussion and debate. You gave up to soon.
The reason that our human rights laws in our country are a joke is because we have people such as 'Ron' suing the government for being 'offended' in a job that they chose to do.
I suspect this does not really involve religion here and i'd not be surprised if the press report that he is looking for a pay-out pretty soon.
I am a Christain but do i get offended when I see an advert for a mosque? No because it's life living with other people's religions and beliefs.
If he feels that strongly then he should resign and not expect the advertising companies to pander to him.
The reason that our human rights laws in our country are a joke is because we have people such as 'Ron' suing the government for being 'offended' in a job that they chose to do.
I suspect this does not really involve religion here and i'd not be surprised if the press report that he is looking for a pay-out pretty soon.
I am a Christain but do i get offended when I see an advert for a mosque? No because it's life living with other people's religions and beliefs.
If he feels that strongly then he should resign and not expect the advertising companies to pander to him.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
Lon;1110914 wrote: Shame shame Pam-----if you cared enough to answer the post on this subject you should care enough to stand by your very own statements. There is no argument. It's called discussion and debate. You gave up to soon.
I've noted your comments and advice, Lon. Thank you for taking the time to set me straight on these matters. And thank you also Oscar, for your personal assessment of these issues.
I've noted your comments and advice, Lon. Thank you for taking the time to set me straight on these matters. And thank you also Oscar, for your personal assessment of these issues.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
AussiePam;1110963 wrote: I've noted your comments and advice, Lon. Thank you for taking the time to set me straight on these matters. And thank you also Oscar, for your personal assessment of these issues.
Did you notice in Panto's opening post that the company responsible for the advert had done so in retaliation for 'Aggresive Religious advertising on the Underground'?
This 'agressive advertising on the underground has been going on for years and millions of people pass through the Underground network in a year. What of all the religious denominations that have travelled on the underground that were offended by the 'agressive religious advertising' of which part has been Christian?
Did you notice in Panto's opening post that the company responsible for the advert had done so in retaliation for 'Aggresive Religious advertising on the Underground'?
This 'agressive advertising on the underground has been going on for years and millions of people pass through the Underground network in a year. What of all the religious denominations that have travelled on the underground that were offended by the 'agressive religious advertising' of which part has been Christian?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
AussiePam;1110963 wrote: I've noted your comments and advice, Lon. Thank you for taking the time to set me straight on these matters. And thank you also Oscar, for your personal assessment of these issues.,
Well----------thank you for being such a nice lady. Just what I would expect from a Virgo.
Well----------thank you for being such a nice lady. Just what I would expect from a Virgo.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
JAB;1110968 wrote: Then they had the same right to protest, strike or not ride the Tube if it offended them to that degree. Obviously it didn't, so they didn't. Ron was offended and took a stand. Why is standing up for your principles so wrong?
Simply because in Britain there is probably not one bus without advertising. It's a huge market for the advertising companies and every day, it seems that the adverts change. He would have been well aware that the buses carry adverts when he took the job on. The advert he was objecting to was only sone-one's opinion. So, what Ron i saying is 'OK i'll take the job on buses that are used for advertising. I don't care if a muslim is offended when the bus advertises the Christian faith, but i will object when it suits me'.
Simply because in Britain there is probably not one bus without advertising. It's a huge market for the advertising companies and every day, it seems that the adverts change. He would have been well aware that the buses carry adverts when he took the job on. The advert he was objecting to was only sone-one's opinion. So, what Ron i saying is 'OK i'll take the job on buses that are used for advertising. I don't care if a muslim is offended when the bus advertises the Christian faith, but i will object when it suits me'.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
JAB;1110968 wrote: Then they had the same right to protest, strike or not ride the Tube if it offended them to that degree. Obviously it didn't, so they didn't. Ron was offended and took a stand. Why is standing up for your principles so wrong?
Standing up for your principles is not wrong, it's when standing up for them affects
others adversely, then it becomes a problem. In Ron's case, his standing up for his principles affected many people adversely.
Standing up for your principles is not wrong, it's when standing up for them affects
others adversely, then it becomes a problem. In Ron's case, his standing up for his principles affected many people adversely.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
JAB;1111012 wrote: Ron didn't say the buses couldn't have the adverts, he just said he didn't want to drive one having the adverts in question thereby giving the wrong impression that he agreed with them.
True.
However, it would be chaos if every driver and passenger did not ride public transport or drive their bus when an advert did not suit. Ron must have seen many many adverts that would be offensive to others but does not seem to care for others opinion until it was an advert disagreeing with his own beliefs. Maybe what he should be protesting over, is advertising on buses as a whole and not just one advert as and when it suits him.
True.
However, it would be chaos if every driver and passenger did not ride public transport or drive their bus when an advert did not suit. Ron must have seen many many adverts that would be offensive to others but does not seem to care for others opinion until it was an advert disagreeing with his own beliefs. Maybe what he should be protesting over, is advertising on buses as a whole and not just one advert as and when it suits him.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
[QUTE=JAB;1111010]Standing up for one's atheistic principles affects Christians when they want to put the 'there is no God' adverts on the bus - why is that ok?
Adversely was probably the wrong word for me to use. Christians may perhaps be affected mentally by atheistic ads, but not in any other way, whereas Ron's situation goes beyond the mental and now becomes financial, creates considerable inconvenience and disruption.
Adversely was probably the wrong word for me to use. Christians may perhaps be affected mentally by atheistic ads, but not in any other way, whereas Ron's situation goes beyond the mental and now becomes financial, creates considerable inconvenience and disruption.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
Lon;1111016 wrote: [QUTE=JAB;1111010]Standing up for one's atheistic principles affects Christians when they want to put the 'there is no God' adverts on the bus - why is that ok?
Adversely was probably the wrong word for me to use. Christians may perhaps be affected mentally by atheistic ads, but not in any other way, whereas Ron's situation goes beyond the mental and now becomes financial, creates considerable inconvenience and disruption.
I couldn't agree more and if we were all honest, we'd admit that we would be pretty pissed off with Ron if we needed that bus to get to an important interview or home to a sick child. Not to mention the chaos caused to the bus company. Believe me, our buses have enough trouble arriveing on time as it is with traffic congestion, let alone him helping the problem all the more. What about the beliefs and rights of his passengers who needed that bus he wouldn't drive? Do they then suddenly become responsible for the bus drivers beliefs?
Adversely was probably the wrong word for me to use. Christians may perhaps be affected mentally by atheistic ads, but not in any other way, whereas Ron's situation goes beyond the mental and now becomes financial, creates considerable inconvenience and disruption.
I couldn't agree more and if we were all honest, we'd admit that we would be pretty pissed off with Ron if we needed that bus to get to an important interview or home to a sick child. Not to mention the chaos caused to the bus company. Believe me, our buses have enough trouble arriveing on time as it is with traffic congestion, let alone him helping the problem all the more. What about the beliefs and rights of his passengers who needed that bus he wouldn't drive? Do they then suddenly become responsible for the bus drivers beliefs?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
Oscar, LOL, having studied ancient religions for the better part of my life each time I see these words I have to smile...
WHEN I WAS A VIKING
MY FRIEND HE WAS THE RAVEN
Are you Scandinavian perhaps?:)
WHEN I WAS A VIKING
MY FRIEND HE WAS THE RAVEN
Are you Scandinavian perhaps?:)
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
Amber Sun;1111018 wrote: Oscar, LOL, having studied ancient religions for the better part of my life each time I see these words I have to smile...
WHEN I WAS A VIKING
MY FRIEND HE WAS THE RAVEN
Are you Scandinavian perhaps?:)
No, very British with a keen interest in Viking history.
It seems many are perplexed by my signature. It is based on The vikings using Ravens as a navigational aid at sea. A Raven would be released on board a Viking Longship. The direction the bird took would determine the route the Vikings would sail.
:D
WHEN I WAS A VIKING
MY FRIEND HE WAS THE RAVEN
Are you Scandinavian perhaps?:)
No, very British with a keen interest in Viking history.
It seems many are perplexed by my signature. It is based on The vikings using Ravens as a navigational aid at sea. A Raven would be released on board a Viking Longship. The direction the bird took would determine the route the Vikings would sail.
:DAt the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
I'm sorry I was a bit irritated before. I'd just read a couple of ongoing political threads in here - and have of late felt increasingly like just going right the heck away from Forum Garden (which has its own kind of irony in view of the last-strawness Mr Heather evidently was experiencing).
-----
Going back to the OP, this man didn't like what he saw and he went home. One person going home is not a strike which brings public transport to a halt. It is one man's action. He's a bus driver, not a philosopher. He felt bad enough about it to speak up.
His bosses were understanding, and he was himself, reasonable and agreed to a compromise. This is hardly bigotry.
There are indeed other offensive ads on buses. Including religious ones. I don't think I'd refuse to drive a bus with a scientology ad or a fundamentalist one either.. but I guess we all have our last-straw point - like kids riding bikes over gardens in war memorials. I respect an individual's right to take personal action when they feel their limit has been reached.
I didn't care for a recent series of notices in Australian buses and said so. The Transport Department was trying to protect elderly passengers, and put warning signs up near the more accessible front seats where they are able to sit. These show drooling old codgers nodding off and warn them to totter onto the bus carefully, hold on firmly and try to stay awake.
------
“I felt that I could not drive that bus, I told my managers and when they said they had not got another one I thought I better go home, so I did.
“I think it was the starkness of the advert that implied there was no God.”
Married Ron was called into a meeting with senior managers and agreed to go back into work providing they ensured he would only have to drive the buses if there were no others available.
A First spokeswoman said: “As a company we understand Mr Heather’s views regarding this atheist bus advert and we are doing what we can to accommodate his request not to drive the bus concerned.
“Mr Heather accepts though that he may need to drive one of these buses if no other vehicle is available for him.
-----
Going back to the OP, this man didn't like what he saw and he went home. One person going home is not a strike which brings public transport to a halt. It is one man's action. He's a bus driver, not a philosopher. He felt bad enough about it to speak up.
His bosses were understanding, and he was himself, reasonable and agreed to a compromise. This is hardly bigotry.
There are indeed other offensive ads on buses. Including religious ones. I don't think I'd refuse to drive a bus with a scientology ad or a fundamentalist one either.. but I guess we all have our last-straw point - like kids riding bikes over gardens in war memorials. I respect an individual's right to take personal action when they feel their limit has been reached.
I didn't care for a recent series of notices in Australian buses and said so. The Transport Department was trying to protect elderly passengers, and put warning signs up near the more accessible front seats where they are able to sit. These show drooling old codgers nodding off and warn them to totter onto the bus carefully, hold on firmly and try to stay awake.
------
“I felt that I could not drive that bus, I told my managers and when they said they had not got another one I thought I better go home, so I did.
“I think it was the starkness of the advert that implied there was no God.”
Married Ron was called into a meeting with senior managers and agreed to go back into work providing they ensured he would only have to drive the buses if there were no others available.
A First spokeswoman said: “As a company we understand Mr Heather’s views regarding this atheist bus advert and we are doing what we can to accommodate his request not to drive the bus concerned.
“Mr Heather accepts though that he may need to drive one of these buses if no other vehicle is available for him.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
oscar;1111019 wrote: No, very British with a keen interest in Viking history.
It seems many are perplexed by my signature. It is based on The vikings using Ravens as a navigational aid at sea. A Raven would be released on board a Viking Longship. The direction the bird took would determine the route the Vikings would sail.:D
Thanks for that bit of information. Ravens always did play a large part in the lives of Scandinavians but I didn't know about this bit.:)
It seems many are perplexed by my signature. It is based on The vikings using Ravens as a navigational aid at sea. A Raven would be released on board a Viking Longship. The direction the bird took would determine the route the Vikings would sail.
:DThanks for that bit of information. Ravens always did play a large part in the lives of Scandinavians but I didn't know about this bit.
:)
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
I hope he doesn't start refusing atheists a ride on his bus.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
OpenMind;1111055 wrote: I hope he doesn't start refusing atheists a ride on his bus.
Good point.
Where does it end? The muslim driver refusing Christian passengers? Ron is forgetting one basic principle.... Britain is a free country with freedom of the written word and speech. The advert is merely an opinion. When did we begin to dis-approve of anyone having an opinion?
I fear he would have a rough ride in the courts if he took the matter further. Unless his lawyer is 'Cherie Blair' of course :sneaky:
Good point.
Where does it end? The muslim driver refusing Christian passengers? Ron is forgetting one basic principle.... Britain is a free country with freedom of the written word and speech. The advert is merely an opinion. When did we begin to dis-approve of anyone having an opinion?
I fear he would have a rough ride in the courts if he took the matter further. Unless his lawyer is 'Cherie Blair' of course :sneaky:
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
I have no problem with people having a strong belief but there is a divide between the Church and the secular world this man must run into advertising he disagrees with on a daily basis yet chooses this to take a stand on. Why? Did he guess that this would get him his 5 minutes of fame?
That this protest would allow him to voice the opinion that his views are better, more important, right versus that of others? Maybe he felt it was time for a Christian human rights story instead of the Muslim moving alcohol?
I smell a distinct agenda in this type of story.
Have your belief, have your faith, have your religion, but remember its yours not everyones. Belief and religion are personal not secular.
That this protest would allow him to voice the opinion that his views are better, more important, right versus that of others? Maybe he felt it was time for a Christian human rights story instead of the Muslim moving alcohol?
I smell a distinct agenda in this type of story.
Have your belief, have your faith, have your religion, but remember its yours not everyones. Belief and religion are personal not secular.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
Victoria;1111182 wrote: I have no problem with people having a strong belief but there is a divide between the Church and the secular world this man must run into advertising he disagrees with on a daily basis yet chooses this to take a stand on. Why? Did he guess that this would get him his 5 minutes of fame?
That this protest would allow him to voice the opinion that his views are better, more important, right versus that of others? Maybe he felt it was time for a Christian human rights story instead of the Muslim moving alcohol?
I smell a distinct agenda in this type of story.
Have your belief, have your faith, have your religion, but remember its yours not everyones. Belief and religion are personal not secular.
Well said.
I did say in a previous post that i suspect there will be a story in the press very shortly about 'Ron' looking for a pay out. Again, i stress that the athiest's put this advertisment on the buses as a counter-action for years of aggresive religious advertising. Did we hear 'Ron' complaining when the London underground was bombarded with Christian advertising? I didn't hear him, did you? Is he offended because he has to walk past a Mosque on his way to work? It's ridiculous and what he is actually objecting to, is some-one else's opinion. When was that a reason to go on strike? I hope they sack him frankly.
That this protest would allow him to voice the opinion that his views are better, more important, right versus that of others? Maybe he felt it was time for a Christian human rights story instead of the Muslim moving alcohol?
I smell a distinct agenda in this type of story.
Have your belief, have your faith, have your religion, but remember its yours not everyones. Belief and religion are personal not secular.
Well said.
I did say in a previous post that i suspect there will be a story in the press very shortly about 'Ron' looking for a pay out. Again, i stress that the athiest's put this advertisment on the buses as a counter-action for years of aggresive religious advertising. Did we hear 'Ron' complaining when the London underground was bombarded with Christian advertising? I didn't hear him, did you? Is he offended because he has to walk past a Mosque on his way to work? It's ridiculous and what he is actually objecting to, is some-one else's opinion. When was that a reason to go on strike? I hope they sack him frankly.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
I wouldn't be surprised if there's something very basic behind this. All we know is what has been reported by the paper.
It could be that he wanted a few days off. Maybe he's vociferous about his religious views and had been wound up by his colleagues.
Who knows. It strikes me there's more to this than the story tells.
It could be that he wanted a few days off. Maybe he's vociferous about his religious views and had been wound up by his colleagues.
Who knows. It strikes me there's more to this than the story tells.
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
JAB;1111418 wrote: Wow. It's pretty sad to me when you spout the right to freedom of expression yet you seem to not allow Ron his right to the same.
Set aside, if you will for a minute, the fact that he is standing up for his religious beliefs. What if it were political or any other wrong that he felt strongly about? Would you be so quick to sack him for fighting for what he believes? Or is it only the devout religious folks that get the 'privilege'?
It's one thing to express your beliefs. It's another to inflict your beliefs onto others which this guy has done. Fair enough if it's in his contract of employment. There's probably a load of people let down by him not driving his route that day. What did they have to do with it all?
I'm all for people having the freedom to believe what they want. Just the same, if it's going to effect a contract you enter into, it should be declared at the outset, not somewhere down the line where it suits the individual.
Set aside, if you will for a minute, the fact that he is standing up for his religious beliefs. What if it were political or any other wrong that he felt strongly about? Would you be so quick to sack him for fighting for what he believes? Or is it only the devout religious folks that get the 'privilege'?
It's one thing to express your beliefs. It's another to inflict your beliefs onto others which this guy has done. Fair enough if it's in his contract of employment. There's probably a load of people let down by him not driving his route that day. What did they have to do with it all?
I'm all for people having the freedom to believe what they want. Just the same, if it's going to effect a contract you enter into, it should be declared at the outset, not somewhere down the line where it suits the individual.
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
JAB;1111486 wrote: But what is a protest if not to peaceably disrupt things to get your point across? Since when do you protest only when it's convenient to those you are protesting against?
When you declare beforehand that you are going to do so. It is egalitarian to do otherwise. We all have differing points of view and if it's not enough to state your view, then people who depend on services should at least have a chance to make other arrangements if you intend to take action. People have rights too despite your point of view. Protestation at other peoples' expense does nothing to rally people to your cause. This was nothing but a selfish act.
When you declare beforehand that you are going to do so. It is egalitarian to do otherwise. We all have differing points of view and if it's not enough to state your view, then people who depend on services should at least have a chance to make other arrangements if you intend to take action. People have rights too despite your point of view. Protestation at other peoples' expense does nothing to rally people to your cause. This was nothing but a selfish act.
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
JAB;1111515 wrote: All protests are selfish acts as the protestor by definition is defending a cause that is important to them.
It's still my belief that if this were any protest other then one based on his religious views then he would not be criticized as much as he has been.
Not all protests are selfish. Not all protests are conducted by people who would gain from them.
Nonetheless, you are entitled to express your beliefs and it is good that we are all able to do so. This forum in particular is exemplary for the ability for everyone to express what they believe and more.
It's still my belief that if this were any protest other then one based on his religious views then he would not be criticized as much as he has been.
Not all protests are selfish. Not all protests are conducted by people who would gain from them.
Nonetheless, you are entitled to express your beliefs and it is good that we are all able to do so. This forum in particular is exemplary for the ability for everyone to express what they believe and more.
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
JAB;1111515 wrote: All protests are selfish acts as the protestor by definition is defending a cause that is important to them.
It's still my belief that if this were any protest other then one based on his religious views then he would not be criticized as much as he has been.
Exactly, JAB!
And specifically because the poor bastard had Christian views. What if he'd been "Prayerful Ali" in the press. And the ad had said Allah instead of God??? Jester and Spot would have been in the thread by now for starters... :yh_rotfl
My final comment is that the slogan is a bit wishy washy for proper atheism. More agnostic really. Atheists have the certainty of their convictions. "God does not exist", not "God probably does not exist".
Now lets all go happily back to our own prejudices, blindspots, personal agendas and selfishnesses... For me this means sunny Sunday at the beach.
Peace !!!
:sneaky:
Attached files
It's still my belief that if this were any protest other then one based on his religious views then he would not be criticized as much as he has been.
Exactly, JAB!
And specifically because the poor bastard had Christian views. What if he'd been "Prayerful Ali" in the press. And the ad had said Allah instead of God??? Jester and Spot would have been in the thread by now for starters... :yh_rotfl
My final comment is that the slogan is a bit wishy washy for proper atheism. More agnostic really. Atheists have the certainty of their convictions. "God does not exist", not "God probably does not exist".
Now lets all go happily back to our own prejudices, blindspots, personal agendas and selfishnesses... For me this means sunny Sunday at the beach.
Peace !!!
:sneaky:
Attached files
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
AussiePam;1111558 wrote: Exactly, JAB!
And specifically because the poor bastard had Christian views. What if he'd been "Prayerful Ali" in the press. And the ad had said Allah instead of God??? Jester and Spot would have been in the thread by now for starters... :yh_rotfl
My final comment is that the slogan is a bit wishy washy for proper atheism. More agnostic really. Atheists have the certainty of their convictions. "God does not exist", not "God probably does not exist".
Now lets all go happily back to our own prejudices, blindspots, personal agendas and selfishnesses... For me this means sunny Sunday at the beach.
Peace !!!
:sneaky:
Ah, but... someone else had that spot on the beach reserved!!!
And specifically because the poor bastard had Christian views. What if he'd been "Prayerful Ali" in the press. And the ad had said Allah instead of God??? Jester and Spot would have been in the thread by now for starters... :yh_rotfl
My final comment is that the slogan is a bit wishy washy for proper atheism. More agnostic really. Atheists have the certainty of their convictions. "God does not exist", not "God probably does not exist".
Now lets all go happily back to our own prejudices, blindspots, personal agendas and selfishnesses... For me this means sunny Sunday at the beach.
Peace !!!
:sneaky:
Ah, but... someone else had that spot on the beach reserved!!!
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
OpenMind;1111527 wrote: Not all protests are selfish. Not all protests are conducted by people who would gain from them.
Nonetheless, you are entitled to express your beliefs and it is good that we are all able to do so. This forum in particular is exemplary for the ability for everyone to express what they believe and more.
'Ron' has hired Max Clifford!!!!!!
Nonetheless, you are entitled to express your beliefs and it is good that we are all able to do so. This forum in particular is exemplary for the ability for everyone to express what they believe and more.
'Ron' has hired Max Clifford!!!!!!
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
oscar;1111740 wrote: 'Ron' has hired Max Clifford!!!!!!
Does that mean that bus fares are going up soon then?
Does that mean that bus fares are going up soon then?
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
OpenMind;1111635 wrote: Ah, but... someone else had that spot on the beach reserved!!!
Spot's on my beach???? Brit visitors stand out particularly on accounta their non-sun-tanned skin shining beacon like.. I'll look out for him.
I'll check out the ads on the ferry this morning too. Last one I saw had a couple of penguins on. Black and white. I take this to be a symbolic endorsement of President Elect Obama. Possibly the picture of the sea behind the said penguin is an oblique reference to the conspiratorial nature of all birth certificates. OOOh, I think there's a spider climbing on me... walking into a web while watering the garden a bit ago... ... this could be symbolic of the problem of probability.
Does God probably exist?
or
Does God probably not exist?
Are these two propositions the same or is it like the half full, half empty glass. Coberst might know.
Perhaps the spider is a Coberst-Ted amalgam... ??????
Spot's on my beach???? Brit visitors stand out particularly on accounta their non-sun-tanned skin shining beacon like.. I'll look out for him.
I'll check out the ads on the ferry this morning too. Last one I saw had a couple of penguins on. Black and white. I take this to be a symbolic endorsement of President Elect Obama. Possibly the picture of the sea behind the said penguin is an oblique reference to the conspiratorial nature of all birth certificates. OOOh, I think there's a spider climbing on me... walking into a web while watering the garden a bit ago... ... this could be symbolic of the problem of probability.
Does God probably exist?
or
Does God probably not exist?
Are these two propositions the same or is it like the half full, half empty glass. Coberst might know.
Perhaps the spider is a Coberst-Ted amalgam... ??????
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
OpenMind;1111748 wrote: Does that mean that bus fares are going up soon then?
Of course!!! We have to cover 'Cliffords' fee's somehow. :yh_rotfl
Of course!!! We have to cover 'Cliffords' fee's somehow. :yh_rotfl
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
religous ron refuses to drive bus the AA grumpy column
AussiePam;1111751 wrote: Spot's on my beach???? Brit visitors stand out particularly on accounta their non-sun-tanned skin shining beacon like.. I'll look out for him.
Mind you wear your polaroids.:wah:
Mind you wear your polaroids.:wah: