THE sound of Champagne corks popping over at Andrea Minichiello Williams’ Christian Legal Centre, is rarely heard, given the Centre’s enormous failure rate.
But this week joy was unconfined when Christian health worker, Margaret Forrester, 39, who faced the sack after giving an NHS colleague a booklet about the potential dangers of abortion, was allowed to return to work.
Margaret Forrester
Williams, who supported Forrester, said:
The level of intolerance in the public sphere, demonstrated increasingly in public sector employment, is deeply worrying. We hope that [the] decision by the NHS will help to reverse the tide of intolerance. This is a victory for freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.
Forrester, a Roman Catholic, claims she was suspended in November last year after she handed a £4.00 pro-life booklet called Forsaken – published by a charity – to a colleague.
It detailed the physical and psychological trauma experienced by five women from Taunton, Somerset, who terminated their pregnancies.
A spokesman for the Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust said Forrester had been warned not to distribute the “offensive” material or anything similar again, but confirmed she had been offered a new role within the trust.
Claire Murdoch, chief executive of the trust, said:
It is clear that the booklet Miss Forrester distributed offers a seriously unbalanced and one-sided view of abortion and that it is offensive to NHS staff.
The booklet implies that abortion can lead to alcohol and drug abuse, suicidal thoughts and increased risk of cancer. This could be very worrying and deeply offensive for women who may need an abortion and want balanced, sensible advice. We simply cannot allow NHS staff to distribute material that we know to be seriously unbalanced.
Hat tip: BarrieJohn
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
January 27th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
This is a good thing.
Why? Because she didn’t really do much wrong. She expressed her opinion about an issue to a colleague, but didn’t force her views.
The manager shouldn’t have pushed the issue.
But it shows that the system works. And equally, when the system condemns someone for actually acting illegally – like in the recent case of the discriminating B&B owners – that the system still works.
I would say that this is, in fact, a loss for the CLC because it shows that their most common defence – that of oppression – is just BS.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
I believe you are incorrect, Mr. McNerney – according to the original story, she did force her views. She was asked politely to not distribute such erroneous and offensive material again, and she point blank refused. The manager had every right to push the issue – is she gave this to a patient or left it around for one to find, it could be genuinely dangerous to their health. She is still in gainful employment but for the grace of… well not god, but probably people deciding to give her another chance.
But I agree with your final point – it does show that the system is flexible enough to accommodate even hardened believers without forcing them out of the public sphere, while protecting everyone else from their nonsense. It certainly blows a hole in the CLC’s continual complaint of Christian oppression and persecution.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Not just the sound of Champagne corks popping but a nice fat cheque from wealthy far right christians organisations will help CCFON finances. So it will be okay for Jehovah Witnesses to pass literature around on blood transfusions. Very unprofessional.
January 27th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
I do like that the Daily Mail are claiming this woman, who wanted carte blanche to force her opinions on colleagues and jeopardise the standard of care of patients, and who was kept gainfully employed through threats and intimidation of her attack dogs, was ‘bullied’.
January 27th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Christians could do themselves a tremendous favour by just shutting TF up and getting on with their jobs. Oh, and they might consider simply doing good in a way anyone can appreciate, instead of constantly proclaiming the need for others to conform to their irrational and unpleasant ideas, which is called ‘being a pain in the arse’ in a sane society.
January 27th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
To be fair valdemar, I think that the vast majority of Christians do precisely that. What we are dealing with here is a tiny but noisy minority. I suspect that many Christians wish that these people would shut TF up as well. It is also worth noting that the zealots are always old, there are no young Christians behaving in this way. Within a few decades the problem will be gone.
January 27th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
I think she should have a second chance. But she needs to shape up.
January 27th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
It’s a shame the Trust have bottled it and not gone to court but with money so tight these days they could be accused of wasting it over a trivial court case. The christian legal centre and their victim haven’t won anything at all. It’s not been tested legally and this is just another example of these fundamentalists warping the truth and being selective in their words. Hardly honest but what we have come to expect from these people and their ilk.
She has been removed from her post and told she must not take such actions again in the future, which prepares the ground for yet more action. No, I wouldn’t call it a victory at all.
January 27th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
If there is a victory here at all, it has to be awarded to the Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust for dealing with this ludicrous woman’s arrogance in what would seem to be an extremely dignified and non-confrontational manner.
One might just dare to hope that Ms Forrester’s new role is emptying bed pans.
January 27th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
If you read the report carefully you will see that she claims that she has been given no warnings, and that she will challenge her employers in court (prompted, no doubt, by you-know-who) if they try to prevent her from continuing to promote her religious ideas at work. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this!
January 28th, 2011 at 1:05 am
Jesus, that is one ugly woman. She looks like a football player with a wig.
Where I work, I am often allowed to enter an idea for an alternative way to accomplish something, but I always figured that once a decision is made by those above my paygrade, it is time to do it according to plan or they will find someone who will.
In this situation, though there may be some underlying intellectual and conscientious debate, it is still a workplace, and everyone has a job to do in an efficient way, in order to keep costs down. Gumming up the works with one’s personal points of view is inappropriate and grounds for dismissal.
Having said that, I believe it is true, depending upon women’s own belief system, that abortion can indeed lead to depression, chronic feelings of guilt, leading to possible suicidal thoughts and actions. I think the cancer thing is bullshit, but it is a viable argument that forces each case to stand on it’s own merit. It is not a case that abortion damages anyone, it is a case of the patient damaging themselves. But, it is still real damage.
NeoWolfe
January 28th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Bed pans? Probably not, but they are very quiet about what this “better job” is. The description seems to have emanated from the Daily Mail btw.
January 28th, 2011 at 9:56 am
@Stonyground: Although your theory about zealots being old and therefore dying out seems good, there is a growing tide of loony evangelizing churches mushrooming especially in certain parts of London. These appear to be being started by foreign organizations and are very popular with certain elements of society. I saw a news item recently where a whole row of shops in one road had been turned in to happy clappy churches with the local council being worried about planning permission laws and the users waving various forms of victim cards. Ho Hum.
January 28th, 2011 at 11:27 am
@Stonyground, Newspaniard is right to point to the rise of new evangelical churches.
Every Sunday morning I travel on public transport to visit my folks, and – as I live in an overwhelmingly white part of the UK, the North East – I’m struck by the growing number of well-dressed African men, women and children who are obviously going to church i.e. carrying Bibles, prayerbooks etc.
As a minor aside, I was greatly amused a few months back when one chap in a nice suit and carrying a huge ‘show off’ Bible got done for not having a Metro ticket. Religiosity = integrity? For the umpteenth time, nope.
January 28th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Whilst I hate to see anyone fired, especially in today’s climate, at the very least she should be given a desk bound job and kept away from patients.
I find the idea of someone pushing their views onto another quite annoying at the best of times, but when that person is vulnerable and emotional it is clearly sickening.
January 28th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Oh well, it looks as though my misplaced optimism has been well and truly shot down in flames. Although I do think that the Margaret Forresters of this world are defended by some of the media due to them being part of the establishment. I rather think that if these black evangelicals start howling about discrimination, the likes of the Daily Mail will be bundling them in with the Muslims.
January 29th, 2011 at 3:52 am
Good for her. I guess the proof is in the statistics for abortions and what it does to the mothers!
January 29th, 2011 at 7:16 am
Jesus, that is one ugly woman. She looks like a football player with a wig.
Does no one else find that remark outrageous and offensive? What would it have to do with the case anyway?
January 29th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
re ‘ugly’ remark
Indeed it has nothing to do with the case. But offensive? She might be offended. I can’t be. I might judge a person who said it as being harsh.
These blogs often comment on people’s appearance in very robust terms. I don’t know whether there is an effort to find unfortunate photos, but I am often startled by mad beards, ears, eyes, teeth, hair or indeed all of the above.
January 30th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
BJohn said:
“Does no one else find that remark outrageous and offensive? What would it have to do with the case anyway?”
Let’s pretend I do. Logically, then, I should be offended that the Kardashian sisters are rich because they’re sexually attractive. Or Angelina Jolie, or Jennifer Anniston. We should pretend that we are not a part of the society that elevates these people because we want to fuck them. At the same time, let’s pretend that when we see a woman who resembles a Sherman tank, wearing a parachute made of spandex, leading a brood of four or five children across a grocery store parking lot, that somewhere deep inside we are not repulsed by the afront to evolution. Let’s deny the obvious statement it makes about the male of the species, that somewhere, no matter how disgusting a woman is, that there is some shriveled man with zero self respect that will stick his dick in any wet hole. All the while lying to himself that he sees her inner beauty.
I didn’t make the rules, I just watch and make observations.
NeoWolfe
February 1st, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Your chauvinist views are repulsive, NeoWolfe.
February 2nd, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Let’s see:
chau·vin·ism   /ˈʃoʊvəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[shoh-vuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. zealous and aggressive patriotism or blind enthusiasm for military glory.
2. biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause.
Pardon me, but, I believe I demonstrated equal distain for the sherman tank and the loser who fucks her. Therefore your label is erroneous.
In fact, it seems to me that it would apply better to a person who thinks that atheists are uniquely freethinkers, and that humanists and agnostics are trolls.
NeoWolfe