of their socialist credentials.

I’m no admirer of Thatcher, but the inconvenient truth is
that Britain was on its knees when she came to power after years of weak,
ineffectual Labour government. Its economy was moribund, its people were
demoralised and its industries were in the grip of thuggish trade unions.
Thatcher rescued the country from irrelevancy and gave the British a reason to
be confident again.

Nonetheless, an enduring hate industry – films, books,
television dramas, journalism – sprang up, based on the premise that she was a
ruthless oppressor of the working class and an agent of greedy, heartless capitalists.

If you ask me, by far the worst consequence of Thatcherism is
that it encouraged droves of sad-arsed, disaffected lefties to flee Britain and
take refuge in countries like New Zealand. Many ended up in academia, where
they werework overtime, which the company not unreasonably assumed
would include Saturdays.

When the company found out his religion
forbade him to work on Saturdays, he was told to go. Had he declared his
unavailability on Saturdays, Affco said, he would not have been employed in the
first place.

Despite this, the tribunal found that the
man was the victim of religious discrimination. Affco was held to be at fault
for not explaining that he might be called on to do Saturday work.

Is it reasonable, I wonder, to expect a
company with 3000 employees of multiple religions, and operating in an industry
where there is intense pressure to process livestock at peak periods, to adapt its
roster to suit the religious beliefs of an individual employee? I suspect most
people would say no.

The company told the tribunal that,
commercially, it was not