Home Politics & Debate

Not allowed to teach because of their political beliefs.

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5179408.stm

Is this a democracy? As long as the guy doesn't spout his beliefs on the pupils I do not see why he shouldn't be able to teach.

Imagine there was a RESPECT candidate wanting to be a teacher, there would be no questions asked.
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But could he be trusted to do his job fairly and properly?

    Can you guarantee he will not discriminate against non-white students? At the end of the day the BNP thinks darkies and Asians/Muslims are unwelcome, non-British, not very worthy beings who should be 'encouraged' to leave the country.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    But could he be trusted to do his job fairly and properly?

    Can you guarantee he will not discriminate against non-white students? At the end of the day the BNP thinks darkies and Asians/Muslims are unwelcome, non-British, not very worthy beings who should be 'encouraged' to leave the country.
    Give him a chance. Teaching should be politically impartial, he should understand that he considers entering the profession.


    How would we know if a RESPECT candidate would favour muslims, anti war students, discriminate against those who are homosexual, capitalists... etc

    It goes both ways.

    I'm just angered how because he supports BNP he is discriminated against but if it was another extremist party, nothing would be said.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That'd be because the BNP are on a different league. They are an abomination.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    That'd be because the BNP are on a different league. They are an abomination.
    Both are extremist in my opinion - they maybe the opposite but they're as bad as each other.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He is as likely to bias his teaching as a muslim cleric teacher or a jewish teacher is towards students. Everyone is as likely to be bias as no one is truly neautral
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Id be against that teacher teaching my child as much as I would if it was a teacher who held other extreme political views that I disagreed with to the extent that they were a candidate for a party.
    Is it really such a shock that a school dont want a known fascist teaching the children?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whilst I don't agree with his political affiliations, I would not have any objections to him working in the teaching profession as long as he kept his political comments out of the classroom. Unfortunately, by his standing for election, he is making his views public knowledge and therefore influencing children. It's a difficult situation but I fully support the NASUWT on this one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I really really am torn on this one, to be honest.

    I don't think anyone would argue that racists should be anywhere near vulnerable people, and that includes teaching and medical staff. The BNP candidate in my village was a doctor, and I don't think racist filth should be allowed to be medical staff.

    However, and its a big however, the BNP are a bona fide political party, and it is an incredibly dangerous democratic precedent if we start sacking people because if their political affiliation.

    On balance, much as I loathe the BNP, the witch hunting does concern me, because it sets such a dangerous precedent. Either we have a democracy or we don't, we can't pick and choose what views we want people to have. It'd be great if everyone had morally correct political views, but they don't, and I think the precedent of screening political parties is far more dangerous than a few BNP bigots.

    The council are right to say that it is not a disciplinary offence for him to exercise his democratic right to stand as a candidate for a bona fide political party of his choosing.

    If the Government were to ban all political party members from the classroom- even just those who send subs to Labour through their union- then I would support that. Teachers have no right to be political, and influence children unfairly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the union ballots its members and they decide they don't want to work with this person, then fair enough.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    If the union ballots its members and they decide they don't want to work with this person, then fair enough.

    So its ok for a union to hound a man out of his job?

    Thank fuck you're not in charge of employment rights.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    So its ok for a union to hound a man out of his job?

    Thank fuck you're not in charge of employment rights.

    Try reading what I wrote. Carefully this time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Try reading what I wrote. Carefully this time.

    The NASUWT are trying to get this man sacked for gross misconduct.

    You are saying it is fine for the NASUWT to refuse to work with him until this occurs.

    I'd expect nothing better from the NASUWT though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No I'm not. I'm saying that if a ballot is made and a democratic decision is taken that people don't want to work with him, then fair enough. I think people should have control over their own workplaces.

    Like you, I am uncomfortable with people being harassed for their political beliefs - historically its been the left who have been the targets. However if the majority of people in a particular workplace are uncomfortable with it, then it should be up to them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    No I'm not. I'm saying that if a ballot is made and a democratic decision is taken that people don't want to work with him, then fair enough. I think people should have control over their own workplaces.

    Like you, I am uncomfortable with people being harassed for their political beliefs - historically its been the left who have been the targets. However if the majority of people in a particular workplace are uncomfortable with it, then it should be up to them.

    What if a ballot is made and a democratic decision taken to ban muslims from the workplace, would you still think that's "fair enough"?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    What if a ballot is made and a democratic decision taken to ban muslims from the workplace, would you still think that's "fair enough"?

    Has this ever happened? Is it likely to happen? Can you point to any examples?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    No I'm not. I'm saying that if a ballot is made and a democratic decision is taken that people don't want to work with him, then fair enough. I think people should have control over their own workplaces.

    But if management decided that they didn't like someone, and sacked someone, you'd be up in arms. As would the NASUWT.

    It is not for a trade union to use its political power to hound someone out of their job when they have done nothing wrong. But at least it shows the union claims of caring about employees to the absolute lie that it is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    But if management decided that they didn't like someone, and sacked someone, you'd be up in arms. As would the NASUWT.

    There is a difference between management and the rest of the workforce.
    Kermit wrote:
    It is not for a trade union to use its political power to hound someone out of their job when they have done nothing wrong.

    I don't see how a majority decision not to work with someone could be called "hounding".
    Kermit wrote:
    But at least it shows the union claims of caring about employees to the absolute lie that it is.

    How do you work that out? Its quite the opposite in fact. Unless you think the rights of one person should outweigh the wishes of the majority?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    There is a difference between management and the rest of the workforce.

    There isn't for the bloke who gets driven out of his job.
    I don't see how a majority decision not to work with someone could be called "hounding".

    Do you really not see that? Are you really being that dense?
    How do you work that out? Its quite the opposite in fact. Unless you think the rights of one person should outweigh the wishes of the majority?

    If the man is guilty of an offence then he should be disciplined.

    He is not guilty of any offence, therefore the fact that some people with more power don't like him is completely irrelevant.

    If it wasn't a trade union doing it it would be classed as workplace bullying. And I for one would like to see the shop stewards dragged over the coals for it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    There isn't for the bloke who gets driven out of his job.

    This makes no sense.
    Kermit wrote:
    Do you really not see that? Are you really being that dense?

    Shouldn't people have the right not to work with people who's views they find offensive?
    Kermit wrote:
    If the man is guilty of an offence then he should be disciplined.

    He is not guilty of any offence, therefore the fact that some people with more power don't like him is completely irrelevant.

    If it wasn't a trade union doing it it would be classed as workplace bullying. And I for one would like to see the shop stewards dragged over the coals for it.

    I do see your pov tbh. And I am slightly uncomfortable with the position I am putting across. But then I think - its the BNP. Fuck 'em. They'd do worse if they could.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:

    Shouldn't people have the right not to work with people who's views they find offensive?



    .
    so if you worked for luke and his dad ...you'd support their right to kick out islamists and gays and immigrants?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so if you worked for luke and his dad ...you'd support their right to kick out islamists and gays and immigrants?

    Are they organising in their workplace to do this? Have they balloted their union members? Have they got union backing? When this happens, lets discuss it. Until then, don't bother.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Are they organising in their workplace to do this? Have they balloted their union members? Have they got union backing? When this happens, lets discuss it. Until then, don't bother.
    why don't bother?
    i'm just asking if it would be ok for the lets say devout xtrian workforce to refuse to work with a gay guy ...ballot ...kick him out ...you would support that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    why don't bother?
    i'm just asking if it would be ok for the lets say devout xtrian workforce to refuse to work with a gay guy ...ballot ...kick him out ...you would support that?

    Has it happened? Are they likely to get union backing? Are the two situations analogous? I say no on all counts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so if you worked for luke and his dad ...you'd support their right to kick out islamists and gays and immigrants?
    I'd be kicked out too then. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Has this ever happened? Is it likely to happen? Can you point to any examples?

    It hasn't happened as far as I'm aware, but it's certainly conceivable.

    Anyway, you're dodging the point - do you think it would be acceptable in principle or not?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    It hasn't happened as far as I'm aware, but it's certainly conceivable.

    Anyway, you're dodging the point - do you think it would be acceptable in principle or not?

    I don't think the two things are comparable. I very much doubt union rank and file would vote to ban Muslims from the workplace. When it happens, lets discuss it. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    I don't think the two things are comparable. I very much doubt union rank and file would vote to ban Muslims from the workplace. When it happens, lets discuss it. :)

    In other words, your argument is shit. :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    In other words, your argument is shit. :lol:

    No, your argument is shit. You're trying to compare apples and oranges.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    I do see your pov tbh. And I am slightly uncomfortable with the position I am putting across. But then I think - its the BNP. Fuck 'em. They'd do worse if they could.

    I think that's the problem.

    If this was kept in isolation against the BNP, you'd have no arguments from me for driving each and every one of them back to the swamps.

    Sadly I don't think this can act in isolation. If people can be sacked for membership of one particular political party, then it won't take long to extend it to other parties which are outside of the acceptable political range. Sacked for being Muslim, or sacked for being a communist, its where the road goes.

    I honestly don't believe it is up to some members of staff to demand other members of staff be sacked, unless it can be shown they have committed gross misconduct. The unions set themselves up as defending staff against this type of bullying- its therefore a bit rich to see them using all their financial and political power against one man they don't like. It's victimisation, and the people responsible should be punished as severely as a bullying manager should be.

    Blagsta, the fact that the NASUWT is a registered trade union is irrelevant. It is a number of staff colluding to drive another member of staff out of his job. That is wrong- the fact they have a shiny plastic membership card doesn't make it right.

    Personally I would like to see members of all political parties banned from the classroom, and that does include members affiliated through their trade union. That would solve the problem straight away, and solve it fairly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Sacked for being Muslim, or sacked for being a communist, its where the road goes.

    .
    dear old blag canna see that for some reason:chin:
Sign In or Register to comment.