Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 23:11:00 -
[1]
Without getting into the politics of the BNP (we're not allowed to discuss that on here and in any case I don't know much about them) I'm interesting in why BNP party members are not allowed to work in certain jobs.
Assuming that the person doesn't break the law why can various Unions, quango's and unelected organizations appear to be able to discriminate against people for their political beliefs, and, who exactly are they to rule that someones thoughts and ideals should restrict that persons trade?
Surely that would be illegal, and, you would assume they must also discriminate against certain religious groups for exactly the same reasons.
Something appears to be very very wrong here in the UK.... |
Arianhod
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 23:21:00 -
[2]
I am personaly of the opinion that if a party has enough votes to gain a constituency or prove to be a very good challenge to one, it is a party whose policies need to be considered by all other parties. The fact that they are the only party talking about some subjects in a frank way (anti PC) is in fact a strong incentive to make them noteworthy. I am disregarding the specifics of what they stand for, and simply going along the fact that the main 3 don't even talk about it. Fascism gets in through the backdoors of a society that is in fear of the opposition and sees itself taking the lesser evil or one that will bring a change beneficial. BNP, they made the bed, now all parties have to lie in it and address the concerns of the citizens that voted for them. If it's worth voting for them, they have something the others don't provide.
That said, I will stop playing devils advocate. It would appear that the Unions don't like the idea of being associated with the BNP, and hence discriminate against them. I believe the BNP to be a necessary evil as if they were outright banned, this could be interpreted as a go ahead for a *** style organization. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer still. So keep the BNP in the commons so we can have dialouge and a means of addressing the issues that they raise well enough to get voted into the commons in the first place
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007.
Originally by: Janu Hull You're making me tingly in the special places...
|
ouroboros trading
Gallente Medics On Fire
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 23:21:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Dr Slaughter
Something appears to be very very wrong here in the UK....
yep.
|
nahtoh
Caldari StrikerCorp Dark Trinity Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 23:38:00 -
[4]
Yeah it seems strange...but the poilce allow the the NBPA to exist...just think of the howls if there was a NWPA.... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
Tiffis
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 23:56:00 -
[5]
I think this sums up my thoughts on the topic.
|
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 00:03:00 -
[6]
Originally by: nahtoh Yeah it seems strange...but the poilce allow the the NBPA to exist...just think of the howls if there was a NWPA....
yeah. I'm used to '[insert colour] arts centers' but no 'white arts centers' coming from Camden. Kinda water off a ducks back. Same goes for music awards etc. ANYWAY...
I'm just surprised that there's such a fascist, and essentially hypocritical, reaction from organizations that say they believe in equal opportunities and upholding the law.
I made my way over to a favorite site (out-law.com) and read the following:
Quote: "The recent Equality Act makes it clear that discrimination against an individual on political grounds constitutes a breach of contractual employment law," he said.
In 2006, the Court of Appeal ruled in a landmark case that an employer did not act unlawfully when it dismissed a BNP member. Bus driver Arthur Redfearn was sacked after he stood for election as a BNP councillor in 2004.
His employers were concerned that his public association with the BNP posed a health and safety risk to users of its service, employees and to Redfearn himself. Redfearn worked with disabled children and adults in a mainly-Asian community.
He argued that the decision to dismiss him amounted to discrimination on racial grounds.
But Michael Ryley, an employment law specialist with Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that the Redfearn case did not justify the sacking of staff simply because they are revealed as members of the BNP.
"Generally speaking it would be unfair to take any sort of action as an employer against an employee for things they do in their spare time," he said.
Ryley said that membership of an extreme political party was unlikely to bring someone's employer into disrepute. But political activism could, he said, and that may be grounds to terminate someone's employment.
He said that while the employer had justification for dismissal in the circumstances of the Redfearn case, there would not always be justification.
"Standing for election is different from being a member of a party. The issue generally is not the person's belief itself; it's the practical manifestation of that belief.
The Redfearn case surfaced when the employee stood in an election. But it would be unfair just to sack an employee for being 'an extremist'," he said.
So, basically, unless there's some legal exemption (as there could be in the Army as an example) what's going on is basically illegal. Why aren't people up in court for this? ~~~~ There is no parody in this thread. Honest. |
Arianhod
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 00:09:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Arianhod on 20/11/2008 00:17:16
Originally by: Tiffis I think this sums up my thoughts on the topic.
I do not support or like the BNP.
However it would be grossly hypocritical of myself to claim they have no right to exist in a state which fought the second world war to keep the country free for speech and thought of its own and generations ahead.
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007.
Originally by: Janu Hull You're making me tingly in the special places...
|
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 00:15:00 -
[8]
That video link was... . . classic.
'you righteous ****whit' might just make my sig ~~~~ There is no parody in this thread. Honest. |
annoing
Fallen Angel's
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 01:29:00 -
[9]
Edited by: annoing on 20/11/2008 01:37:18 I cant believe im going to say this:
We live in a democracy and part of that democracy ideal is the freedom to choose and the freedom of speech. Even though the thought of the BNP disgusts me, I do believe they have the right to 'be'. If they want to stand for election then so be it. If they want to hold rallies then so be it. Just as it is my right to stand in an election against them, to hold a rally against their ideals. It isnt a democracy when you exclude another political party however heinous their beliefs are. Also, as part of that democracy, people have the right to join that party, to become active members, to stand for election etc. Anything else isnt democracy, its a step towards a totalitarian state.
|
Sallah Hernandes
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 01:30:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Dr Slaughter
"He argued that the decision to dismiss him amounted to discrimination on racial grounds."
Anyone else appreciate the irony of this?
same problem as everywhere - there will always be a group of a-holes willing to tell you your problems are someone else's fault and it suits some people to believe it.
|
|
Baldour Ngarr
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 03:42:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Baldour Ngarr on 20/11/2008 03:42:39 Maybe I can get away with explaining some BNP politics, in the light of how large a news story this has become.
The British National Party is only open to white people. It campaigns for the keeping of Britain (or England, at least, since it has close to nil representation in the other Home Nations) for the "indigenous" white population. It evolved out of various neo-fascist groups.
In cases where membership of the BNP makes it actually illegal for you to hold a job (like the police force), it is because it's held to be mutually exclusive that you can believe in the forcible repatriation of, and/or legalised discrimination against, non-whites and still do your job properly. In cases where people are simply getting hounded out of work (a radio DJ has been sacked already), it's merely because the BNP are held in widespread contempt. It's rather as if the Ku Klux Klan membership list had been made public (although the BNP has never been proven to be behind racial violence, despite being widely believed to be so) - how many companies would continue to hire someone who had been exposed as a practicing Klan member?
*edit* reminder, we are not allowed to discuss whether these BNP policies are good or bad. I merely point out what they are. |
Gabrialle
Amarr Sunspot Requisitions Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:49:00 -
[12]
Also to add a few more painful facts to this barrel of laughs...
We arent a democracy we're a monarchy, the queen is the only single person in the country who can override the PM's orders, she simply has sense enough not to.
We have no stated legal right to free speech in this country, the closes t thing we have is the magna carta. |
Gojyu
Ever Flow Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 06:01:00 -
[13]
It's time for the almighty power of the internet lawyer
According to UK law, a business may discriminate against people not sharing a belief when it can establish that such a belief is relevant to the required duties of the position.
Given this law, a business could argue that in a position were treating mixed races equally is an integral part of the position means that the belief of racial equality is relevant to the required duties of said position.
Given this, a person can thus be seen to be unable to perform the duties of the position due to belief, and thus it is legal to discriminate against them. This argument is further evidenced by the UK's courts support of this argument |
Souvera Corvus
Gallente SPORADIC MOVEMENT FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 06:13:00 -
[14]
Time for the internet Jurisprude.
Where the BNP's ability to exercise what they feel are their constitutional and legally enforcable rights impinge on other citizens (ethnic minorities) ability to exercise the same rights then its permissable and desirable for government to restrict those rights and for the courts to support them.
The right, such as it exists, to free speech isn't absolute and neither should it be.
|
Davina Braben
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 07:51:00 -
[15]
Because being a member of an organisation peopled by racist ****s (Nick Griffin is a greasy little turd. I am always massively amused to see his pale chubby squinty eyed face on TV championing the cause of racial superiority) and with an explicitly racist manifesto is entirely incompatible with working for an organisation that is supposed to provide public service.
Public service is supposed to be fair and impartial to people of all races and racial discrimination not just frowned upon but in some cases illegal.
It could also really damages the relationship between those organisations and the communities they serve.
Take those police officers for example. What does it do to the credibility of their force when dealing with members of the public who are "non-white" (as the BNP would have it)? If this sort of thing were widespread it would make their position untenable.
I don't know if you guys abroad are aware but we had a murder a few years ago where a teenager called Stephen Lawrence was stabbed to death by a gang of skinheads. The police investigation and criminal prosecution was fatally flawed and said skinheads walked.
There was later an inquiry and a civil court case and one of the outcomes was that the Met was "institutionally racist". This doesn't just mean that individual officers are racist or that there is an unfortunate canteen culture but that the organisation itself fails to provide the service it should to people because of their skin colour.
Having police officers in the BNP 10 years after this is anywhere from "regrettable" to "a bloody disaster" depending on what those officers are actually doing and what cases they have been involved with. |
Valan
The Fated
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 10:02:00 -
[16]
What made me smile is that on the BBC the BNP were descibed as an anti immigration party and that was bad.
In the next story leading politicians were talking about stopping immigration. /start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig |
Dwain Chambers
Big S Triangle
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 10:49:00 -
[17]
Leaving abusive and threatening e-mails and telephone messages to known BNP members is pretty hypocritical :s
Also: political party is full of a-holes... more news at 11. |
Baldour Ngarr
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 11:07:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Davina Braben Because being a member of an organisation peopled by racists and with an explicitly racist manifesto is entirely incompatible with working for an organisation that is supposed to provide public service.
Public service is supposed to be fair and impartial to people of all races and racial discrimination not just frowned upon but in some cases illegal.
You, like most people, and like the (illegal) UK laws that forbid membership for certain groups, are all missing an obvious point.
Just because you think that it should be legal to treat certain groups as second-class, does NOT mean that you actually do so currently. Proof of BNP membership is not proof of racism. |
Gojyu
Ever Flow Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 11:21:00 -
[19]
Quote: Proof of BNP membership is not proof of racism.
No, however, getting up at a public forum (through the elections that the person in question ran in) and stating that you agree with the racist ideals of the bnp, you believe that the bnp ideas should be implemented as law and you believe that whites are a superior race is
|
kor anon
Amarr The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 11:57:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Gojyu
Quote: Proof of BNP membership is not proof of racism.
No, however, getting up at a public forum (through the elections that the person in question ran in) and stating that you agree with the racist ideals of the bnp, you believe that the bnp ideas should be implemented as law and you believe that whites are a superior race is
I dont think that they believe in whites being supreme, they just want Britain to be for the white indiginous british people. Ironic considering everyone in Britain is retty much an immigrant |
|
Gojyu
Ever Flow Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 12:07:00 -
[21]
Originally by: kor anon
Originally by: Gojyu
Quote: Proof of BNP membership is not proof of racism.
No, however, getting up at a public forum (through the elections that the person in question ran in) and stating that you agree with the racist ideals of the bnp, you believe that the bnp ideas should be implemented as law and you believe that whites are a superior race is
I dont think that they believe in whites being supreme, they just want Britain to be for the white indiginous british people. Ironic considering everyone in Britain is retty much an immigrant
Their technical belief is fairly subtle. They state they do not believe any ethnic group being superior to another. However, they do believe that there are certain biological factors that can cause certain ethnic groups to be more prone to crime, more violent and at a lower cognitive level than whites. At a basic level, they're hiding a mask of superiority with the argument "Muslims are genetically disposed to violence and evil, blacks are less evolved and less able to think as a human, but we don't think we're superior... that would be bad" |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 12:08:00 -
[22]
This is one of those things that really makes my blood boil. Why is it ANYBODY'S business but the individual concerned? I can't believe people could lose their jobs because it's been found out they are a member of a legitimate political party. Because the person holds an opinion that runs contrary to the popular opinion.
Hell, this is getting into thought-crime territory. "You're a member of the BNP, which means you must think things which we don't like. This is not allowed. And by the way, we have ALWAYS been a war with Eastasia."
If the person can do the job, what difference does it make? |
Baldour Ngarr
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 12:12:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Gojyu
Quote: Proof of BNP membership is not proof of racism.
No, however, getting up at a public forum (through the elections that the person in question ran in) and stating that you agree with the racist ideals of the bnp, you believe that the bnp ideas should be implemented as law and you believe that whites are a superior race is
No it isn't. It proves only that they believe racist practice should be allowed. It offers no proof whatsoever that they're committing any. ________________________________________________
"I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
http://eve-search.com/thread/73354/page/1#1 |
Gojyu
Ever Flow Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 12:34:00 -
[24]
Quote: It proves only that they believe racist practice should be allowed
Then they should have no problem with the court's decision should they? |
kor anon
Amarr The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 12:42:00 -
[25]
Edited by: kor anon on 20/11/2008 12:44:20 I think there whould be a public forum (not the internet type), where in it you can express any view as you wish free from charge. Any views expressed are left at the door of the forum, so that they have no effect on your day to day life. This way we could remove freedom of speech outside of these forums.
Just an idea, i donmt know how effective it would be
|
Gojyu
Ever Flow Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 12:54:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Gojyu on 20/11/2008 12:54:49
Originally by: kor anon Edited by: kor anon on 20/11/2008 12:44:20 I think there whould be a public forum (not the internet type), where in it you can express any view as you wish free from charge. Any views expressed are left at the door of the forum, so that they have no effect on your day to day life. This way we could remove freedom of speech outside of these forums.
Just an idea, i donmt know how effective it would be
I believe people should be willing to accept the fact that their actions have consequences, and should be willing to accept those consequences.
|
Kaiser Sorano
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 12:55:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Davina Braben
There was later an inquiry and a civil court case and one of the outcomes was that the Met was "institutionally racist". This doesn't just mean that individual officers are racist or that there is an unfortunate canteen culture but that the organisation itself fails to provide the service it should to people because of their skin colour.
You could contend that the police service is 'institutionally incompotent' or at the least 'institutionally hampered' by crap policies and targets. Couple that with a bureacratic justice system and people are being hammered for minor crimes while people who attack other people are getting away with a few weeks of painting walls or picking up litter.
To swing this post back on topic, I would say that private companies can largely do as they please with regards choosing who they can and can't employ (to a certain extent). The reins tighten when you look at government organisations such as the NHS or local councils who have strict policies to deal with redundancy and employment.
|
kor anon
Amarr The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 12:55:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Gojyu
Originally by: kor anon Edited by: kor anon on 20/11/2008 12:44:20 I think there whould be a public forum (not the internet type), where in it you can express any view as you wish free from charge. Any views expressed are left at the door of the forum, so that they have no effect on your day to day life. This way we could remove freedom of speech outside of these forums.
Just an idea, i donmt know how effective it would be
I believe people should be willing to accept the consequences of their actions
What actions? im talking about them speaking their bit freely and thats it
|
Davina Braben
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 12:56:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Davina Braben on 20/11/2008 13:01:03
Originally by: Baldour Ngarr
Originally by: Davina Braben Because being a member of an organisation peopled by racists and with an explicitly racist manifesto is entirely incompatible with working for an organisation that is supposed to provide public service.
Public service is supposed to be fair and impartial to people of all races and racial discrimination not just frowned upon but in some cases illegal.
You, like most people, and like the (illegal) UK laws that forbid membership for certain groups, are all missing an obvious point.
Just because you think that it should be legal to treat certain groups as second-class, does NOT mean that you actually do so currently. Proof of BNP membership is not proof of racism.
Sophistry aside ("proof"? please. How can you have "proof" of the inner motivation for any decision?) I think we both know that back in the real world the two are going to "coincide" often enough for anyone who has explicitly stated views of that kind to not be trustworthy to be in that position of power to begin with.
edit I'm assuming you're not seriously suggesting that the BNP aren't a racist organisation with a racist manifesto there.
There is also the issue of why of you are seen to make a decision.
The Police (or any other government organisation) cannot be associated with an organisation like the BNP in the minds of the public. It damages their integrity. It damages their authority. Neither of those things are really optional.
|
Gojyu
Ever Flow Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 13:22:00 -
[30]
Originally by: kor anon
Originally by: Gojyu
Originally by: kor anon Edited by: kor anon on 20/11/2008 12:44:20 I think there whould be a public forum (not the internet type), where in it you can express any view as you wish free from charge. Any views expressed are left at the door of the forum, so that they have no effect on your day to day life. This way we could remove freedom of speech outside of these forums.
Just an idea, i donmt know how effective it would be
I believe people should be willing to accept the consequences of their actions
What actions? im talking about them speaking their bit freely and thats it
That's an action. I go out yelling about how Lebanese people are s****in some neighborhoods in Sydney and I'll likely die. I tell the media that I believe that non-whites do not deserve the same rights as white people, and my job is to be the primary carer for disabled non-whites, even for a short time during the day, and I'll lose that job.
Words, especially in today's society, have real power. That political correctness has gone so far as allowing people to preach hate and discrimination as says "oh well, we wouldn't want to hurt their sensibilities by rallying against them" is a weakness of today's society, not a strength
|
|
kor anon
Amarr The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 13:26:00 -
[31]
Edited by: kor anon on 20/11/2008 13:28:03
Originally by: Gojyu
That political correctness has gone so far as allowing people to preach hate and discrimination as says "oh well, we wouldn't want to hurt their sensibilities by rallying against them" is a weakness of today's society, not a strength
I agree totally, but what you have there is preferential treatment. They can say whatever they want, else we're negating their human rights. But if i were to say something opposite i would be branded a rasict
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 14:10:00 -
[32]
Its not really as strange as all that. It'd be like members of the anti-gay Christian Voice UK trying to go for jobs in gender equality committees. Their personal attitude (as clearly flagged up by supporting a particular organisation) is incompatible with the job in question.
More to the point, every employer in the country has the right to not hire someone based on personal views and personality traits. Its only right- no-one should be forced to hire people they find despicable. The government is an employer too, and they have exactly the same right. If they feel the BNP's policies are not compatible with their own, they're free not to hire party members.
And finally, HM Civil Service has a statutory obligation to remain politically neutral. Senior civil servants have been banned from joining political parties of any sorts (including the mainstream parties) since the '50s. Although junior civil servants are allowed to join political parties, they are expected to remain low-key and non controversial at all times, and are completely forbidden from expressing political opinions while at work. ------
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich You can even get a midget with a camera to sit on the floorboard.
|
Sasha Lyre
Gallente Blood Music
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 16:03:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Davina Braben Edited by: Davina Braben on 20/11/2008 08:12:44
I don't know if you guys abroad are aware but we had a murder a few years ago where a teenager called Stephen Lawrence was stabbed to death by a gang of skinheads. The police investigation and criminal prosecution was fatally flawed and said skinheads walked.
There was later an inquiry and a civil court case and one of the outcomes was that the Met was "institutionally racist". This doesn't just mean that individual officers are racist or that there is an unfortunate canteen culture but that the organisation itself fails to provide the service it should to people because of their skin colour.
Having police officers in the BNP 10 years after this is anywhere from "regrettable" to "a bloody disaster" depending on what those officers are actually doing and what cases they have been involved with.
I'm astonished some of the people on that list did not know better.
This isn't about excluding those organisations from the democracy btw. They're not banned organisations. You can vote for them. Those police officers can vote for them.
I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but at roughly the same time as the above incident, a white teenager was brutally murdered in Glasgow, by a gang of asians, it was later discovered that it was a purely 'racially motivated' murder. Unfortunately it was not reported with the same vehemence as the Stephen Lawrence case and probably never even made the english news. It's not pc or fashionable and possibly not even acceptable to report on racial attacks against 'white people' anymore.
I don't support the bnp, I'm not really that political, but I do find the hypocrisy and moreso the ignorance of the general public, staggering.
The worst people being those with a 'bit' of knowledge who think that they know what Britain is like to live in...
Your Blood Goes to my Head and the Music Flows through my Veins |
Xrak
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 17:42:00 -
[34]
Quite simply if you are a member of the police force, you should not be allowed to join any political party, OR you should be free to join any political party. Firing someone because they are part of the BNP because their 'views' and your company's are different is like firing someone because they are members of the Labour party and so they must be corrupt and support taking money for peerages.
|
Davina Braben
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 17:45:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Davina Braben on 20/11/2008 17:46:16 Actually I'm pretty sure I remember that from The Sun at the time. Guy was called "Kriss Donald" apparently.
Did the police fail to investigate that properly so the offenders got away with it because the victim was white? Not from what I'm reading.
In fact it looks like extraordinary efforts were made to extradite some of the killers from a country with no formal extradition treaty.
I'm not sure why you're offering this as a counter-point to my post. I was talking about institutional failings resulting from racism.
Racism can go any number of ways. Didn't say it couldn't.
I'd be saying the same thing about police officers turning up on the membership list of an anti-white organisation if only I could think of one. I wonder how many bobbies and prison officers are on Al Quiada's membership list? |
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 17:51:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Dr Slaughter on 20/11/2008 17:54:10 Hang on a minute people...
I believe the law is that you can discriminate against employing someone only if they are likely to cause certain things to happen because, as an example, their religious or political views are known publicly.
In the case of the bus driver he was obviously a risk as he was standing for office. i.e. he became a public figure and suffered the consequences.
Now if the bus driver was just a member of the BNP surely they wouldn't have had any grounds to not hire him etc??
If a police officer, doctor, or teacher isn't standing for public election as a BNP representative surely it would be illegal to fire him/her or refuse to employ them? Their BNP, or other groups membership is immaterial.
When I was at school in Camden the Humanities department was full of raving left wing socialists. We had 5 years of their ideology being rammed down our throats at every opportunity. Our book choices, essay titles, field trips, form reviews, drama projects all had a political skew applied to it. It was totally wrong and should have been unacceptable but the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) was run by the same set of people, and the Greater London Council (GLC) too.
i.e. the status-quo was socialist left wing
For some reason that's acceptable? WTF. Those teachers, governors, inspectors should have been sacked, it's ironic the same people are now saying what they've all done themselves should be banned.
Back to our police man, teacher, doctor; Obviously if they subsequently acted in a way that broke a law (made a point of always beating up gay irish people) then they would be investigated and would face the consequences of their actions.
What I'm having problems with is that a group of employers appears to be discriminating illegally based on some unilateral opinion of the PRIVATE political views, and not public actions of individuals.
Oh, and they're doing it by using material that was illegally released and in-breach of the data protection act...
Surely that's totally wrong?
There are, obviously, some exceptions that would be valid;
Someone who wants a job as a religious minister who is an atheist or follows a different religion, Judges, and so on, but for the rest of us there are the copious volumes of LAW.
Why are these organizations allowed to ignore it? If someone knows and has links to the actual statutes that allow it, or the cases where the points of law have been made, I'm very interested. Otherwise my conclusion is that we're living in a fascist state run by hypocritical people with a chip on their shoulder about other political views.
|
Captain Hudson
Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 18:30:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Captain Hudson on 20/11/2008 18:34:23
Originally by: Dr Slaughter Without getting into the politics of the BNP (we're not allowed to discuss that on here and in any case I don't know much about them) I'm interesting in why BNP party members are not allowed to work in certain jobs.
Assuming that the person doesn't break the law why can various Unions, quango's and unelected organizations appear to be able to discriminate against people for their political beliefs, and, who exactly are they to rule that someones thoughts and ideals should restrict that persons trade?
Surely that would be illegal, and, you would assume they must also discriminate against certain religious groups for exactly the same reasons.
Something appears to be very very wrong here in the UK....
If you work for the Armed Forces,Police or Prison Service you are obliged to have no political affiliations with anybody. Why? - because you are there to serve everybody no matter what creed they are and being a member of the BNP (whites only) is rather conflicting no?.
Also these people who had their names leaked are so scared for their lives now just makes me laugh, they made their bed now they can lay in it tbh
EDIT - I actually would not be suprised if the BNP released the list themselves so they can get a bit of news time seeing as they are a total waste of space. |
Thorliaron
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 18:46:00 -
[38]
This is why no likes BNP |
ouroboros trading
Gallente Medics On Fire
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 19:14:00 -
[39]
i don't think there is anything wrong with using a french bank tbh.
(sigh) |
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 20:37:00 -
[40]
Originally by: ouroboros trading i don't think there is anything wrong with using a french bank tbh.
(sigh)
Thorliaron - Ce n'est pas de savoir qui aime qui. Le fait que c'est la BNP est sans pertinence. Il s'agit d'hypocrisie, d'enfreindre la loi, et pourquoi certaines personnes semblent penser parce que leurs opinions politiques sont diffTrentes, ils devraient Otre autorisTs a discriminatoires a l'Tgard des autres.
Le capitaine Hudson - je d'accord que les forces armTes, police, administration pTnitentiaire et les juges ne devraient pas avoir d'appartenance politique. Il est trFs Ttrange, cependant, que certains semblent Otre en mesure d'Otre membres de certains partis politiques mais pas d'autres, franchement, qui va pour Otre un membre d'une Union qui a bloquer les droits de vote dans le groupe Labor trop.
Bien entendu, vous pouvez faire ce que vous voulez, mais a rire des gens qui mai maintenant Otre victimes par d'autres parce que quelqu'un distribuT illTgalement leurs dTtails ne vous montre dans une lumiFre trFs pauvres. |
|
Gojyu
Ever Flow Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 22:31:00 -
[41]
Quote:
If a police officer, doctor, or teacher isn't standing for public election as a BNP representative surely it would be illegal to fire him/her or refuse to employ them? Their BNP, or other groups membership is immaterial.
Nope. Police are specifically prohibited from joining the bnp (it'd be like an american cop being a member of the ***). As for any other job, uk courts have ruled that membership of a racist organisation does not constitute a valid philosophical or religious belief, and is not a racial prejudice. The United Kingdom also does not consider discrimination against a political belief unlawful
|
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 23:12:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Gojyu Nope. Police are specifically prohibited from joining the bnp (it'd be like an american cop being a member of the ***). As for any other job, uk courts have ruled that membership of a racist organisation does not constitute a valid philosophical or religious belief, and is not a racial prejudice.
The police may be specifically prohibited by their association (ACPO's statement on this is here) but is it actually legal?
I would suggest that it isn't legal at all and the very act that they say their trying to abide by they are actually breaking.
Originally by: Gojyu The United Kingdom also does not consider discrimination against a political belief unlawful
Your statement appears to be incorrect.
Quote: The Equality Act 2006 is set to clarify the law on religion or belief discrimination. The Act changes the existing definition of religion and belief set out in the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
Now at first you think.. ah.. it's only religion.. but
Quote: A Regulation 2(1) of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (the regulations), defines religion or belief as "any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief". The explanatory notes to the regulations state that the reference to "similar philosophical belief" does not include any philosophical or political belief unless it is similar to a religious belief, but the Equality Act 2006 amends this definition by removing the word 'similar'. Under the new definition, "belief means any religious or philosophical belief". This change will, therefore, considerably widen the scope of what might be regarded as a philosophical belief as any genuine philosophical belief, including political beliefs, will be covered.
Rather than quoting more I will point you to the article and this one in particular.
I really don't want to get hung up on the BNP in this thread I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the legality of this issue. As others have stated in this thread it appears a lot of people have assumptions based on incorrect information.
Any HR / Lawyers out there care to comment? |
nahtoh
Caldari StrikerCorp Dark Trinity Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 23:21:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Davina Braben Edited by: Davina Braben on 20/11/2008 17:46:16 Actually I'm pretty sure I remember that from The Sun at the time. Guy was called "Kriss Donald" apparently.
Did the police fail to investigate that properly so the offenders got away with it because the victim was white? Not from what I'm reading.
In fact it looks like extraordinary efforts were made to extradite some of the killers from a country with no formal extradition treaty.
I'm not sure why you're offering this as a counter-point to my post. I was talking about institutional failings resulting from racism.
Racism can go any number of ways. Didn't say it couldn't.
I'd be saying the same thing about police officers turning up on the membership list of an anti-white organisation if only I could think of one. I wonder how many bobbies and prison officers are on Al Quiada's membership list?
The first reports were that it was not a racilly motivated attack...which unfotuntly is the first response for a lot of mionorty crimes against non-majority crimes...pity the reverse is pretty much standard.
And your last strawman is pretty pathitic BTW...one is a allowed political party...the other is a proscribed org...
Woulod the same prosription got for mbrs of SHAC or the ALF? or how about radicial gay groups? (The shrill harpies that will proclaim that having a ***** is going equiped for **** or all hetrosexual intercourse is ****?). ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
Thorliaron
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 23:46:00 -
[44]
french people talking about racial parties and problems is just wrong, sort your own house out first then worry about the uk's.
|
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 23:53:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Dr Slaughter on 20/11/2008 23:57:23 After reading more, and unless someone else comes up with something to prove otherwise, I've got my answer.
1. It's illegal to discriminate against someone for their political beliefs if you're an employer with a few limited exceptions (see the bus driver above).
2. You can discriminate against someone from joining (or subsequently expel them) your organisation (such as a Union or trade body) as a case was won against the UK Government in the European Court of Human Rights by one of the Unions which changed the Trade Unions and Labour Relations Act.
So ACPO's (a trade association) to ban police from being BNP members is dubious at best unless a police officer was being racist in his job or was publically known to be a member of the BNP.
That last point is probably why the list was released.
It gives people who hate the BNP a way to legally argue that everyone on the list is potentially in physical danger (see the bus man) or might put fellow workers or customers in danger/or bring the employer into disrepute as their political belief is now 'public knowledge' and thus they should be fired/made redundant.
Pretty screwed up. Will be interesting to see what happens next.
-- and Thorliaron, just for you: Je ne suis pas frantais, je suis anglais, je viens d'utiliser google pour le fun! ~~~~ There is no parody in this thread. Honest. |
Davina Braben
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 01:27:00 -
[46]
Originally by: nahtoh
Originally by: Davina Braben Edited by: Davina Braben on 20/11/2008 17:46:16 Actually I'm pretty sure I remember that from The Sun at the time. Guy was called "Kriss Donald" apparently.
Did the police fail to investigate that properly so the offenders got away with it because the victim was white? Not from what I'm reading.
In fact it looks like extraordinary efforts were made to extradite some of the killers from a country with no formal extradition treaty.
I'm not sure why you're offering this as a counter-point to my post. I was talking about institutional failings resulting from racism.
Racism can go any number of ways. Didn't say it couldn't.
I'd be saying the same thing about police officers turning up on the membership list of an anti-white organisation if only I could think of one. I wonder how many bobbies and prison officers are on Al Quiada's membership list?
The first reports were that it was not a racilly motivated attack...which unfotuntly is the first response for a lot of mionorty crimes against non-majority crimes...pity the reverse is pretty much standard.
And your last strawman is pretty pathitic BTW...one is a allowed political party...the other is a proscribed org...
Woulod the same prosription got for mbrs of SHAC or the ALF? or how about radicial gay groups? (The shrill harpies that will proclaim that having a ***** is going equiped for **** or all hetrosexual intercourse is ****?).
I pointed out that they weren't a proscribed organisation earlier in the thread. AQ were just the first organisation that sprang to mind who really don't like "White european males". Maybe Nation of Islam is a better point of comparison.
You missed the point with the Kriss Donald thing. The relevant part of what I said about the Lawrence case was to do with the Macpherson report. The press are never even handed about anything. It's like missing white woman syndrome.
I'd imagine that membership of ALF or SHAC would probably present problems for a police officer, yes. I don't know if they're on any list of groups you can't be a member of but I imagine they'd not help your promotion prospects any. The other groups I haven't heard of engaging in arson (maybe arse-on) or intimidation so I don't know.
|
nahtoh
Caldari StrikerCorp Dark Trinity Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 04:29:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Davina Braben
I pointed out that they weren't a proscribed organisation earlier in the thread. AQ were just the first organisation that sprang to mind who really don't like "White european males". Maybe Nation of Islam is a better point of comparison.
You missed the point with the Kriss Donald thing. The relevant part of what I said about the Lawrence case was to do with the Macpherson report. The press are never even handed about anything. It's like missing white woman syndrome.
I'd imagine that membership of ALF or SHAC would probably present problems for a police officer, yes. I don't know if they're on any list of groups you can't be a member of but I imagine they'd not help your promotion prospects any. The other groups I haven't heard of engaging in arson (maybe arse-on) or intimidation so I don't know.
If the resoning behind it is to make sure that the mbrs of the orgs that have these requirements do not use their position to spread their possably ectreme views they should include perhaps social services...theres been some very dodgy calls made one in yorkshire, one in wales and then there was the great big ****up in the orkney isles.
If its required for one group then its required for all. ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
Davina Braben
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 09:19:00 -
[48]
Originally by: nahtoh
Originally by: Davina Braben
I pointed out that they weren't a proscribed organisation earlier in the thread. AQ were just the first organisation that sprang to mind who really don't like "White european males". Maybe Nation of Islam is a better point of comparison.
You missed the point with the Kriss Donald thing. The relevant part of what I said about the Lawrence case was to do with the Macpherson report. The press are never even handed about anything. It's like missing white woman syndrome.
I'd imagine that membership of ALF or SHAC would probably present problems for a police officer, yes. I don't know if they're on any list of groups you can't be a member of but I imagine they'd not help your promotion prospects any. The other groups I haven't heard of engaging in arson (maybe arse-on) or intimidation so I don't know.
If the resoning behind it is to make sure that the mbrs of the orgs that have these requirements do not use their position to spread their possably ectreme views they should include perhaps social services...theres been some very dodgy calls made one in yorkshire, one in wales and then there was the great big ****up in the orkney isles.
If its required for one group then its required for all.
Well for the police-
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20030527.htm
Quote: SCHEDULE 1 Regulation 6
RESTRICTIONS ON THE PRIVATE LIFE OF MEMBERS OF POLICE FORCES
1. A member of a police force shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere; and in particular a member of a police force shall not take any active part in politics.
So it's more about conflict of interest. Some forces specifically list the BNP, NF and C18 as being organisations you can't be a member of under the same section about avoiding conflicts of interest. They also have stuff like paying your debts promptly and not having business interests which conflict.
Orkney... are you talking about a series of weird child abuse allegations in the 80's-90's? |
TimMc
Gallente Brutal Deliverance
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 09:34:00 -
[49]
Its not really like suppressing the BNP would work, the suppression of any movement has almost always been counter productive to its removal of ideals from society.
As Britain gradually becomes more of a diverse society and citizens become used to it, these **** groups will slowly disappear. |
ouroboros trading
Gallente Medics On Fire
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 12:55:00 -
[50]
Originally by: TimMc
As Britain gradually becomes more of a diverse society and citizens become used to it, these **** groups will slowly disappear.
i hate diversity when it's all so much crap.
bring food, bring music, bring your language. bring yourselves. leave religion at the door otherwise yer gonna **** all the wrong people off kthx. |
|
Davina Braben
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 15:03:00 -
[51]
Tish pish.
Great Britain has always been about diversity.
Our culture is riddled with bits of other people's we stole.
Ditto our language.
The "English" actually aren't because England used to drop her knickers for anyone with a fancy longboat / vast horde of frenchmen / etc.
I don't even think there is a coherent national identity outside of stuff like sport and even that's a bit complicated because in the world cup it's England but in the olympics it's great Britain.
I say this as someone who is as English as tea, curry and chips
|
Voltain
BEER Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 15:17:00 -
[52]
If Police officers in the UK aren't allowed to have political alignments, why do they have a vote?
The BNP may leave a sour taste in my mouth, but they are a legitimate political party.
The current Labour government allowed the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Which of these two are responsible for the deaths of countless civilians?
My Country is going crazy.
|
ouroboros trading
Gallente Medics On Fire
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 15:55:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Davina Braben Tish pish.
Great Britain has always been about diversity.
Our culture is riddled with bits of other people's we stole.
Ditto our language.
The "English" actually aren't because England used to drop her knickers for anyone with a fancy longboat / vast horde of frenchmen / etc.
I don't even think there is a coherent national identity outside of stuff like sport and even that's a bit complicated because in the world cup it's England but in the olympics it's great Britain.
I say this as someone who is as English as tea, curry and chips
don't equate ethnicity with culture, or chaos for diversity. and certainly don't think it's all equal.
|
ouroboros trading
Gallente Medics On Fire
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 15:59:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Voltain If Police officers in the UK aren't allowed to have political alignments, why do they have a vote?
The BNP may leave a sour taste in my mouth, but they are a legitimate political party.
The current Labour government allowed the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Which of these two are responsible for the deaths of countless civilians?
My Country is going crazy.
i actually joined the labour party then realised what a total NUTFEST (no pun on the NUT intended lol)political parties are.
i actually did a keanu-reeves level whoa.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
the amount of doublethink that goes on, christ on a ****ing bike.
|
TimMc
Gallente Brutal Deliverance
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 16:46:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Davina Braben I say this as someone who is as English as tea, curry and chips
lol great line. Britain has no real identity other than if you weren't born here, then your not british (or english, whatever.. since we are so not a United Kingdom). I'm American but lived in and loved Britain for most my life, but I am still considered an American. |
Dr Slaughter
Minmatar Rabies Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 17:03:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Dr Slaughter on 21/11/2008 17:05:24
Originally by: Davina Braben
Well for the police-
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20030527.htm
Quote: SCHEDULE 1 Regulation 6
RESTRICTIONS ON THE PRIVATE LIFE OF MEMBERS OF POLICE FORCES
1. A member of a police force shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere; and in particular a member of a police force shall not take any active part in politics.
So if the BNP (or other) member is not acting as a party activist (just a member who pays their membership fee, reads some of the books/website, and doesn't go on marches, attend public meetings etc.), and the public don't know they're a member, this restriction would not effect them.
Of course that's one of the reasons the list has been leaked. If the public know who's who.. that restriction can be applied.
I wonder if the SI would fail when put up against the ECHR though?
In any case it will be interesting to see what happens next.
ps. 'likely' is a poor test as it's entirely subjective. If their record is exemplary in all respects 'likely' would probably fail miserably in front of a judge. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |