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.
Options
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
as i reckon, if he isn't doing his job properly, sack him, however you cant just sack someone because of their political affiliations - unless they belong to an illegitamate political party such as one that is DIRECTLY associated with violence
yes i dispice the BNP, but i recognise the right of non-violent political parties to exist - despite what what we know they think in private however it is better to confront and invalidate their arguments, not just ban them
I'm not sure how you equate a democratic decision with bullying.
Yes, I am. In this sense, that is.
Might is right?
It isn't a democratic decision at all. Sure the union can ballot, but the minute that they present the results of their ballot and suggest that the man is sacked, it becomes bullying.
And that is where you start having problems. Eiether there is political freedom, or there isn't. There is not halfway house here and I really don't think that any union would welcome their political beliefs becoming as issue for employers.
I agree that the employees should have a voice, but not on something like this, unless they are willing to accept their own political stances being outlawed. So, when a member of staff is sacked for being a member of the Labour Party/Socialist Party then the union should say nothing.
They do have the right to decide who they work with, I agree. If they don't like him then it is they who have a problem and should leave. Not him.
Where criminal activity is involved, I would hold a different stance.
This man has acted within the law, and I pray god I never see the day when being a member of a political party is illegal. I also pray that we never end up with a socialist Govt because if you and Aladdin are any example then you are just as dangerous, if not more so, that the incumbents.
Democratic for whom?
If you agree that employees can hound a man out for his political views, then you must therefore agree with employers hounding someone out for their political views.
The thing I am finding most bizarre is that you and Aladdin are seemingly happy with a group of people getting together to drive a man out of his job when he has committed no disciplinary offence, but when two shop stewards started an illegal strike at British Airways and got sacked for causing £25m+ damage you got your knickers in a wad and started bleating about how unfair it all was.
This is all about a group of people using their political might to target someone they don't like. If it wasn't the NASUWT doing it it would be bullying, as you have admitted yourself. You are pro-bullying- if so, should we tear up employment rights law?
The NASUWT, like all trade unions, are vermin only interested in their own ego trip. The day a trade union practises what it preaches is the day my pork chop grows wings.
As an aside does anyone know what the percentage of teachers in the school who are in NASUWT, compared to how many are in NUT and how many don't belong to a union. I'd be slightly suprised if NASUWT made up a majority.
Now, let's deal with the more specific case. When I was at college, and something of a Leftie myself, I learnt a bit about teaching unions from one very militant Left-wing teacher. He was my History teacher, but I did not trust him to give me an impartial view one bit. Trade unions are stuffed to the gills full of Left-wingers who want to talk politics, but know they would have no chance of winning an election in any constituency. Ask yourself - would YOU vote for Bob Crowe of the RMT? Opposite, would you vote for Sir Digby Jones, formerly head of the CBI? I'd rather stick pins in my eyes.
I'm not foolish here. I can see that the way any person teaches will be affected by their views and their experiences. That can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. I would rather that children learn about the horrors of racism by studying the facts. The facts of what we know about the Final Solution speak for themselves about the largest act of evil in history. All I would argue is teachers can put forward their own views, if they so wish, but should make absolutely clear that these are personal views and that students would not be punished or would otherwise suffer if they do not agree. I would positively not be in favour of the witch-hunts that Aladdin and Blagsta seem keen to start up on.
anyone mentioned the very people these decisions effect the most ...cos i can't find anything.
the teacher speaks publicly of his hatred of blck and asian people ...families ...children.
so no ...he cannot possibly have a teaching job.
the people most effected by these decisions and debates.
i declare i hate old people ...would you let me run a nursing home?
i declare i hate black and asian people ...families ...children ...youlet me work with these families ...these children?
i think not.
The BNP leadership say it in private, but its not something they are very public about.
If he is shown to be treating certain pupils different then he should be dismissed. Membership of a political party doesn't mean that necessarily.
Having said that, I do see your point, and any victimisation of the BNP is hard to argue against.
And I have never suggested people should be banned from thinking anything. You couldn't be more off the mark if you tried.