no exceptions except, it appears, where there are strong pragmatic grounds for so doing. 99 Barry's statement that 'special treatment for members of disadvantaged groups is justified only for so long as the inequality persists' 100 is, I think, correct. But his statement that 'the object of special treatment for members of disadvantaged groups is to make the need for that special treatment to disappear as rapidly as possible' 101 is, although apt in relation to measures designed to lift people out of poverty or ameliorate historical disadvantage, less so in this context: the accommodation of religious needs will not itself make the need for such accommodation disappear. It is at least arguable that neither will the achievement of a formally neutral state. Remaining exceptions to formal state neutrality consist predominantly in the arrangement of conventional working hours and schooling arrangements around the Christian calendar, the role of Anglican bishops in the House of Lords and (likely of minority concern) restrictions on accession to the throne of Catholics. (Blasphemy laws, which applied to Christianity (possibly Anglicanism) alone were abolished in May 2008. 102 ) The focus of those who favour religious equality should be in ridding the state of these exceptions and, in the meantime, negotiating appropriate accommodations with them for individuals who adhere to the non-'favoured' faith, rather than in ensuring to religious individuals rights to discriminate on other grounds. Likely to persist even in the event of formal neutrality are the difficulties thrown up by different rules or