If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You were told otherwise three of four times. The fact that you ignore them proves that you only ever read what you want to read.
But back to the actual debate, folks.....
he's perfectly entitled to hold and propagate his views but he can't expect the world to smile benignly on them
Blagsta, I really don't understand where you are coming from. Whatever happened to tolerance?
This man has done nothing more than put his name forward for election. That neither you, nor I, like what he stands for is irrelevant.
His policitcs were the same before his candidacy and will remain afterwards. Yet there have never been complaints about his teaching ability. That should be the end of the matter.
If you think otherwise I would take you back to the "if you tolerate this" comments on another thread.
It is not acceptable to discipline someone because of their political beliefs.
End of.
I've explained my position.
Obviously not well enough
Seriously though, are you willing to tolerate people being disciplined purely on the basis of political belief?
Ignore the fact that this man is racist, what his politics actually are isn't relevant to the debate really.
If we tolerate this man being disciplined because his political views don't match those of his employers, what is to stop the sacking of workers just because they support unions...?
I have not said this. Read what I wrote again, I can't be arsed to repeat it.
Read what MoK actually said.
Your argument is "it's racist and racists don't beliong in the classroom". Which is all fair and good, but doesn't actually answer what MoK is actually asking you to do.
No, thats not my argument. Try again.
My argument is that he is publicly espousing racist views. Thats the crux, publicly. If he kept them to himself there would be no problem.
Late '70s the telly shut down afetr the 10 O'clock News, if my facts are right.
Taxes are set by Government indeed, but somebody had to pay for the train drivers' inflated wages, and the miners' inflated wages, and the teachers' inflate wages (at the time) and the printers' inflated wages...
A 3-day week is fine if you don't need the wages of a 5-day week in order to pay the bills and feed the kids, but isn't quite so fantastic if the exctortionate levels of taxation are meaning that the money coming in doesn't pay for a shop 'round Tesco.
I think they're wrong.
I think there's other worse things taxes are spent on, than paying people a decent wage.
How about paying people more? How about bosses taking a pay cut for a change?
I shall have to check it out. It's what I've been told; I obviously wasn't around to know for myself.
Indeed. But that wasn't my point.
Not really relevant. People get paid for hours worked, it's what happens. For a lot of companies they couldn't afford to give people extra when the electricity was shut off because of striking miners and striking power station workers, so when half the week was lost to the unions people lost money. It's all well and good saying "the bosses should find the money" but a lot couldn't and can't, not unless you work for a big corporate organisation.
Why dont you start a new thread with all this trade union stuff,
that way more people will take it in and be able to comment.
Again, how is that relevant?
So we know he's racist, does that mean that he is amy less capable than before we knew?
Either we want the best person for the job, or we want the best person (who conforms to our political views)...
If you find out that a teacher of primary school kids is sexually attracted to children would you let him continue in his position if he had never broken the law?
And equally, if you find out that a teacher is supporting and indirectly promoting racism and hatred, why would you let him continue to teach children with such massive conflict of interests? Even if he has broken no laws, surely that deems him unsuitable for his job? You cannot have such a man teaching children, specially when some of those children might belong to the ethnic minorities his political party campaigns so vigorously and viciously against.
Had the man been a warehouse worker or a brick layer I'd be the first one to say he should not have been suspended. But he should not be in charge of children.
Thats bullshit, so its ok for as some of you say a 'racist' working in a building site but keep him away from children, total and utter rubbish.
You have to make the difference beween....
OH i cant be bothered
Now if you tell me that the man who is sexually aroused by children should be allowed to continue teaching so long as he does not break the law, I will see your point. But if you believe such man should not be allowed to teach children, even if he's considered no danger to them, then there is no excuse whatsoever for fighting the corner of a BNP candidate who is not being allowed to teach children either.
Different 'offence' but SAME case of conflict of interest/ preventive measures to protect children.
I've already explained all this. Try reading the thread properly.
Please explain why its bullshit.
Yeah, I'd like to know too.
Has he in any way harmed children ? Id be the first person to jump on the bandwagon if he had abused children in any way, so as we have been told he did not take his political views to the classroom then he should not be banned from working with children. He hasnt harmed anyone. Although now I agree because this story is so big it would cause problems for everyone involved at the school, so its probably best he doesent work there for everyones sake.
I cant comprehend how people are saying this fella is racist so he shouldnt work with kids but its ok if he works on a building site
Racism needs to stamped out fullstop so condoning it depending on what job they have is silly..........isnt it ? pah you tell me cos im confused at your way of thinking.
and ive also replied that he didnt take politics to the classroom, so its pointless going round in circles.
So he was a fair teacher before all this ? even though he probably still held the same views. So what you are saying is that you can think what the hell you like but dont stand as a BNP candidate ? He wont have changed in personality or how he sees things overnight, I cannot see the difference to be honest.
I really can't be arsed to go over it again.
Try reading my posts properly.
Instead of replies like this do you not think it would be better just discussing this issue with me instead of acting all superior and that you are right and I am wrong (cos thats the impression im getting)?
Just because you have a view it does not mean it is 'right', for once understand we are all different and we are probably not gonna agree on everything, so please stop replying to people with the response you just did to me.
Thank you.
Er... because kids are vulnerable? Because he would be in a position of power over them?
I presume that you would have no problem with a sex offender who has now served his sentence and it's back into society if he got a job as a brickie. But I'm sure you would have a problem if the said man got a job as a primary school teacher.
Bottom line: children are vulnerable and thus should be protected from all sorts of abuse or risk thereof.
Is it really that difficult to comprehend?
I've stated my point quite clearly 2 or 3 times.
I'm not doing so again.
now you are scraping the barrel arent you. We are not talking sexual natures here we are talking about wether this man who incidently didnt take politics to school should lose his job. Can we not just discuss the topic in hand instead of bringing hypothetical cases to this thread.
your all aware on my views regarding sexual things regarding children so you know obviously that i would not want a sex offender working with children.
But he did. By standing for the BNP.