The Todal wrote:
|| "The Real Doctor" wrote in message
|| ...
||| On 27 Nov, 12:20, "The Todal" wrote:
|||
|||| Not really - being lawyers, they are far more vague and wooly in
|||| their advice than necessary. The obvious is that to sack a person
|||| for being a BNP
|||| member (and for no other reason) is plainly unfair dismissal.
|||
||| Though sensible employers will now be checking applicants against
||| the list to make sure the problem doesn't arise.
||
|| That's probably sensible. I would not knowingly want to employ a BNP
|| candidate for employment, or do business with a BNP member offering
|| his services as a contractor. I'm afraid I am prejudiced against BNP
|| members and regard them as suffering from an impairment of reason.

I too suffer from the same kind of prejudice, I would not want to do
business with anyone who supported wholesale slaughter of men, women and
children in an unnecessary and illegal aggressive war. Unfortunately though
I have no way to discover who those people are.

--
Rob

On Nov 27, 2:19*pm, abelard wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:01:14 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing

Therefore if such a person is a declared member of a group that is
generally perceived as having a racist character then the two roles
are *clearly incompatible.

If the BNP member were a ploughman then it would be a different matter.

how does that apply to a medic who refuses to give abortion advice

Medics can already refuse to be part of the abortion process on ground
of conscience.

Some would argue that abortion has nothing to do with medicine.

Others that it is the very reverse.

or an islamic policeman that won't give directions to the local bnp
* * office or church...

If I were that policeman working in my own town I would know where the
Labour, Conservative and Liberal Clubs were. I would not know the
location of the BNP office even if I had access to a directory. I
don't think the BNP operate in that way.

As regards a church, I don't think there is any proscription in Islam
against an adherent having knowledge of the location of a church or
imparting that knowledge to someone else. They probably use such
buildings as landmarks just as we do,

"abelard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:19:56 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:


"The Real Doctor" wrote in message
...
On 27 Nov, 12:20, "The Todal" wrote:

Not really - being lawyers, they are far more vague and wooly in their
advice than necessary. The obvious is that to sack a person for being a
BNP
member (and for no other reason) is plainly unfair dismissal.

Though sensible employers will now be checking applicants against the
list to make sure the problem doesn't arise.

That's probably sensible. I would not knowingly want to employ a BNP
candidate for employment, or do business with a BNP member offering his
services as a contractor. I'm afraid I am prejudiced against BNP members
and
regard them as suffering from an impairment of reason.

the same applies to other socialists

but socialists claim to believe in 'equality'.....

the usual dilemma for the vegetarian who prefers leather boots

Come to think of it, I think anyone who puts on their CV that they are a
member of any political party, can only do themselves harm. It certainly
isn't a positive.

The Todal wrote:
"The Real Doctor" wrote in message
...
On 27 Nov, 12:20, "The Todal" wrote:

Not really - being lawyers, they are far more vague and wooly in their
advice than necessary. The obvious is that to sack a person for being a
BNP
member (and for no other reason) is plainly unfair dismissal.
Though sensible employers will now be checking applicants against the
list to make sure the problem doesn't arise.

That's probably sensible. I would not knowingly want to employ a BNP
candidate for employment, or do business with a BNP member offering his
services as a contractor. I'm afraid I am prejudiced against BNP members and
regard them as suffering from an impairment of reason.

Indeed, how on earth could anyone object to this country ending up like
Zimbabwe!

On Nov 27, 1:01*pm, Mel Rowing wrote:
On Nov 27, 12:20*pm, "The Todal" wrote:



Mel Rowing wrote:
On Nov 27, 10:07 am, "The Todal" wrote:
As expected.

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sto...2&storycode=13...

"Solicitors have urged employers to think carefully before dismissing
workers simply because of their membership of the British National
Party. The entire 12,000 strong membership list of the organisation
was published on a website last week.
Some names were listed with comments such as "discretion required -
employment concerns."
Martin Warren, head of the HR practice group at Eversheds, said
employers should tread carefully.
"It is appropriate to draw a distinction between political activism
and mere membership of a political party.
"If an employee's political activities have an impact on, for
example, colleagues, customers or the local community then it could
be reasonable for an employer to take action.
"Dismissing someone simply because they are a member of a political
party like the BNP is likely to be much more difficult to justify.
An employer will be on firmer ground if membership of certain
organisations is incompatible with the individual's job and there is
a clear policy spelling this out."
Robert Riley, partner at Addleshaw Goddard in Leeds, said the issue
of BNP membership raised the same legal questions as anything else
done by employees in their private life which could damage the
reputation of their employer."

Well isn't that a statement of the obvious?

Not really - being lawyers, they are far more vague and wooly in their
advice than necessary. The obvious is that to sack a person for being a BNP
member (and for no other reason) is plainly unfair dismissal.

It certainly could be seen as such but it all depends on
circumstances.

It would be held as unfair if a man lost his job if he lost a leg in a
traffic accident and worked in an office but not if he were a
scaffolding *erector.

Many people hold jobs where an essential ingredient is interaction
with members of the general public. Indeed such a job may involve
close interaction and include a further element of close interaction
and even a position of authority. The general public includes members
of all races, religions, genders etc.

Therefore if such a person is a declared member of a group that is
generally perceived as having a racist character then the two roles
are *clearly incompatible.

If the BNP member were a ploughman then it would be a different matter.

Ignorant prejudice, nothing more ... on your part and those who you
pretend to protect (but cannnot, of course).

No better than those who put 'No Blacks' in their windows, in the
past.

WM
www.critest.com

Mel Rowing wrote:
On Nov 27, 2:19 pm, abelard wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:01:14 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing

Therefore if such a person is a declared member of a group that is
generally perceived as having a racist character then the two roles
are clearly incompatible.

If the BNP member were a ploughman then it would be a different
matter.

how does that apply to a medic who refuses to give abortion advice

Medics can already refuse to be part of the abortion process on ground
of conscience.

Some would argue that abortion has nothing to do with medicine.

Others that it is the very reverse.

or an islamic policeman that won't give directions to the local bnp
office or church...

If I were that policeman working in my own town I would know where the
Labour, Conservative and Liberal Clubs were. I would not know the
location of the BNP office even if I had access to a directory. I
don't think the BNP operate in that way.

As regards a church, I don't think there is any proscription in Islam
against an adherent having knowledge of the location of a church or
imparting that knowledge to someone else. They probably use such
buildings as landmarks just as we do,

or aiming points

The Todal wrote:
"The Real Doctor" wrote in message
...
On 27 Nov, 12:20, "The Todal" wrote:

Not really - being lawyers, they are far more vague and wooly in
their advice than necessary. The obvious is that to sack a person
for being a BNP
member (and for no other reason) is plainly unfair dismissal.

Though sensible employers will now be checking applicants against the
list to make sure the problem doesn't arise.

That's probably sensible. I would not knowingly want to employ a BNP
candidate for employment, or do business with a BNP member offering
his services as a contractor. I'm afraid I am prejudiced against BNP
members and regard them as suffering from an impairment of reason.

so you are allowed to be prejudiced against a group of people purely because
of their beliefs? isn't that illegal nowadays?

On Nov 27, 2:56*pm, "Mentalguy2k8"
wrote:
"Mel Rowing" wrote in message

Membership of the BNP doesn't automatically equal racist.

Then someone ought to let the members in on this secret.

Only this week we had one who stated that the only reason that he was
a member is because the party is racist.

Plenty of people join or support the BNP for nationalistic reasons, and by that I mean pride
in your own ancestry, culture and traditions (in the same way that we have
various festivals to celebrate other cultures), without the connotations of
racist "send 'em home" thuggery that the less understanding people throw at
it. There are certainly extremists within the party, but there are
extremists in all political parties.

Perhaps there are but not in high office.

Your own leader stands convicted of incitement of racial hatred.

Burnley? Oldham? “Africans for Essex” lie? (Dagenham)? Robert Mc
Glynn? "wicked, vicious faith" ? "multi-racial hell hole"? ""Let's
show these ethnics the door in 2004."

You could fool me!

You could fool most people.

"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
...
Mel Rowing wrote in
:


Many people hold jobs where an essential ingredient is interaction
with members of the general public. Indeed such a job may involve
close interaction and include a further element of close interaction
and even a position of authority. The general public includes members
of all races, religions, genders etc.

Therefore if such a person is a declared member of a group that is
generally perceived as having a racist character then the two roles
are clearly incompatible.

Nonsence. I hate some types, but I still work with them in a professional
manner. Personal life and beliefs are one thing, whereas work life and
directives are another. Therefore, I can compartmentalise the two.

On a personal level, I think I can sometimes enjoy the company of friends or
business contacts who are racist or virulently anti-homosexual or make
offensive remarks about women. That is to say, I am willing to overlook
these faults if they have personal qualities that make their company
worthwhile.

However, in this day and age most employers are required to implement
anti-racist and diversity policies. It would be risky (in that you'd risk
failing your audits) to do business with someone who would be reluctant to
do business with a black or jewish or Asian person. Easier, if at all
possible, to sever all connection with them. And let's face it, given the
choice one would far rather work with a sensible, tolerant person than with
someone who might pick a fight with others because he regards them as
racially inferior.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 at 15:19:56, The Todal wrote
in uk.legal :

Though sensible employers will now be checking applicants against the
list to make sure the problem doesn't arise.

That's probably sensible. I would not knowingly want to employ a BNP
candidate for employment, or do business with a BNP member offering his
services as a contractor. I'm afraid I am prejudiced against BNP members and
regard them as suffering from an impairment of reason.

I think the same thing about religious people, but unlike the above
situation, I would be prevented from excluding them solely on that
basis...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham