Comments on: Climate change – the new religion? http://michaelscutt.co.uk/2009/03/20/climate-change-the-new-religion/ Employment Law Explained Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:45:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: michaelscutt http://michaelscutt.co.uk/2009/03/20/climate-change-the-new-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-36 michaelscutt Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:13:53 +0000 http://michaelscutt.co.uk/?p=368#comment-36 Thanks for the comment. I can't see this decision surviving an appeal. As Usefully Employed commented on here already this decision provides protection for vegetarians (I've nothing against vegetarians by the way) which cannot have been envisaged or intended by the draftsmen when drafting the Regulations. Thanks for the comment. I can’t see this decision surviving an appeal. As Usefully Employed commented on here already this decision provides protection for vegetarians (I’ve nothing against vegetarians by the way) which cannot have been envisaged or intended by the draftsmen when drafting the Regulations.

]]> By: James Medhurst http://michaelscutt.co.uk/2009/03/20/climate-change-the-new-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-37 James Medhurst Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:02:34 +0000 http://michaelscutt.co.uk/?p=368#comment-37 I have to agree with your scepticism about this decision and I wonder whether McClintock will assist in any appeal. In paragraph 45, Elias P (as he then was) states, "It is not enough to have an opinion based on some real or perceived logic or based on information or lack of information available." As science is founded on the idea that its conclusions can be overturned when new evidence emerges, this would seem to rule out any scientific belief from qualifying. On the other hand, maybe the tribunal considered that Mr. Nicholson believed so strongly in climate change that he would have clung tenaciously to it even if evidence to the contrary was found. I have to agree with your scepticism about this decision and I wonder whether McClintock will assist in any appeal. In paragraph 45, Elias P (as he then was) states, “It is not enough to have an opinion based on some real or perceived logic or based on information or lack of information available.” As science is founded on the idea that its conclusions can be overturned when new evidence emerges, this would seem to rule out any scientific belief from qualifying. On the other hand, maybe the tribunal considered that Mr. Nicholson believed so strongly in climate change that he would have clung tenaciously to it even if evidence to the contrary was found.

]]> By: michaelscutt http://michaelscutt.co.uk/2009/03/20/climate-change-the-new-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-39 michaelscutt Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:14:58 +0000 http://michaelscutt.co.uk/?p=368#comment-39 I haven't seen a law report of it - only a newspaper report so there is a lack of clarity on why the ET reached that decision - albeit at a preliminary hearing. I think there is lots of scope for vegetarians, vegans, fruitarians, even Gwyneth Paltrow, to be protected. I would be very surprised if this decision doesn't get overturned - what's your take? I haven’t seen a law report of it – only a newspaper report so there is a lack of clarity on why the ET reached that decision – albeit at a preliminary hearing.

I think there is lots of scope for vegetarians, vegans, fruitarians, even Gwyneth Paltrow, to be protected. I would be very surprised if this decision doesn’t get overturned – what’s your take?

]]> By: Usefully Employed http://michaelscutt.co.uk/2009/03/20/climate-change-the-new-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-38 Usefully Employed Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:24:34 +0000 http://michaelscutt.co.uk/?p=368#comment-38 Do we have a copy of the judgment posted anywhere? Surely ripe appeal territory - question: would vegetarianism be protected? Do we have a copy of the judgment posted anywhere? Surely ripe appeal territory – question: would vegetarianism be protected?

]]>