So, at a stretch, it is possible to understand BA’s bewilderment and frustration at the outcry over Nadia Eweida’s crucifix.

Ms Eweida, a former member of BA’s check-in staff who has lost her appeal to wear a tiny cross outside her uniform, has become a Christian cause celebre. She has the support of nearly 100 MPs. More worryingly for BA, churches are railing against the airline. There is talk of a Christian boycott of the airline worldwide. Only for the worldly is it still the world’s favourite airline.

British Airways is at fault. For it is mishandling for a religious issue, betraying both its multicultural principles and a huge potential market.

For, Ms Eweida not only has a strong argument of freedom of religious expression on her side, but also hundreds of millions of potential passengers. The 2001 census showed that 71.1 per cent of Britons identify themselves as Christians. According to Aquarius, a marketing consultancy focused on religious affairs, there are 2.1 billion people who call themselves Christian, by comparison with 1.1 billion who describe themselves as secular, non-religious, agnostic or atheist. The devout represent a powerful market: The Passion of the Christ has grossed $613 million at box offices worldwide.

British Airways has previously struggled with icons. When it came to removing the flag from the tailfin, it underestimated patriotism. Now, it has misunderstood the nature of modern faith. There are a growing number of Christians who feel threatened by secularism. Spiritually, the world is more polarised and politicised. Christians, particularly evangelicals, are adopting the activist habits of other religious communities.

By sticking to its guidelines on uniforms, BA is insen- sitively, perhaps uninten- tionally, appearing to use its professional code to make a secular case. People of faith expect not just tolerance, but respect. BA needs to show it.

Traditional media are down but not out

For what has seemed like a long, long time, the fashion-able view has been that the advertising market’s woes were not cyclical but structural. The assumption was that the internet — with the help of other digital technologies such as the personal video recorder — would bleed dry the established consumer media. Lonely hearts, estate agents, soap powder makers would all turn to Google or Craigslist. Like all fashionable views, it seems to be overdone. The signs are that the ad market — dire for the past 18 months — is coming back to life. Look at the signs: advertising at the Daily Mail was up between September and November. Daily Mail & General Trust’s shares were up 5.5 per cent yesterday, as it reported that its beleaguered regional newspapers, from Hull to Bristol, will see a pick up from next year. ITV last week talked about late money coming into ITV1 (although, for television, the fourth quarter is still dire). Radio executives reckon there will be growth next year — a contention backed up by Zenith, traditionally amongst the most pessimistic of forecasters, who predict that TV and cinema will return to growth next year. The fact is that the internet threat was misunderstood and, as a result, exaggerated. DMGT has shown it can grow its own online profits. Likewise, Guardian Media Group’s: Auto Trader website has superseded, principally, the magazine. A three-minute clip filmed in a bedroom and posted on YouTube is not a substitute for Desperate Housewives, either for viewers or advertisers. There are profound changes happening in the entertainment and information business. But brands that want to reach mass audiences continue to find mass media attractive. Overseas, there is little angst about the future of television, although newspaper circulations, could be healthier. Advertising has always been cyclical; the market looks as though it is on the turn.

Playing fair by Farepak savers

M&S, Tesco, Morrisons, Argos and others are to be applauded for giving money to the rescue fund for victims of the Farepak collapse. The 150,000 mostly low-income families who saved up with Farepak have been robbed of a happy Christmas. They deserve all the help they can get.

But the fact that MPs are now writing to the bosses of the FTSE 100 companies to ask them to contribute to the fund is absurd. The Farepak collapse was not a failure of capitalism, but of a single mismanaged company. The idea that Britain’s biggest companies should bail out Farepak’s victims suggests that politicians see a guilt by association, that successful businesses should take care of the free market’s failures. Companies work when they take care of their own investors and their customers. A rule that Farepak forgot.

Readers can donate to the Farepak Response Fund on 0845 260 1096, send a cheque to Unit 4, Alpha Court, Monks Cross Drive, Huntington, York YO32 9WN, or visit www. farepakresponsefund.org.uk

Times Recommends

• B&B shareholders forced into funding rescue
• John Lewis department store sales plunge 8.3%
• Families turn to credit to cover mortgage bills