Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've been mulling over the issue of police not

> being allowed to join the BNP. I think that's

> wrong. It reminds me of when I worked in the MOD

> many moons ago and members of GCHQ were not

> allowed to strike.

>

> Whether you agree with unions/closed

> shops/political parties or whatever, if they are

> legitimate under British law, I don't think anyone

> should be discriminated against.

>

> My take on it anyway.


xxxxxxxx


I think the two things are different - surely GCHQ is concerned with national security, and striking by members could have dire consequences as a result?


The reasoning behind members of the police force not being allowed to join the BNP is different, I think.


Forgive my ageing brain cells if any of the following is wrong - supposed to be off to a conference shortly and no time to Google!


After the Steven (sp?) Lawrence case there was a lot of soul-searching in the police, and the case led to the MacPherson (sp?) Report and then the introduction of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act.


That act was intended to ensure that public sector bodies in particular took steps to ensure that they were not discriminating, directly or indirectly, against members of black and minority ethnic groups - and publicised what they were doing so that everything was absolutely transparent.


Racism and/or what became known as a result of the McPherson Report as institional racism in organisations were very sensitive topics and it was necessary (and right in my opinion) for the police to be seen to be doing everything possible to ensure that all members of the community were treated fairly.


Whether or not the BNP is a legitimate political party (I expect the Nazis were too?) membership of it by a serving police officer would surely not be in line with the police force's requirement to comply with the legislation relating to race in this country.


I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure, but quite apart from the clear need for the police to be fair - and to be perceived to be fair - I think legally they would be skating on very thin ice if they were to allow BNP members amongst their staff.


And now I must rush!

I agree with Sue that it would be hard to perceive the police as fair if they belong to the BNP. Having said that, even though I do not agree with the latter's politics, I do believe in free speech.

I am not at all surprised that there are BNP members living in the SE21,22,23 postcodes. I think many people living round here still have a real - often unwarranted- fear of surrounding areas like Peckham and Brixton, which tend to have higher number from ethnic minorities living there. The BNP preys on those kinds of fears.

For example, I know quite a few people who won't go to the Peckham cinema or health club because they fear getting mugged. I frequently go to both and have never had any problems (touch wood).

There could be the argument that all this talk about the rights of policemen to belong to organisations is null and void because being non-prejudiced is a prerequisite for the job.


Hasn?t it been a long standing tenant that you are a policeman first and a ?whatever your religion is? second?


So you could argue that in order to be a policeman you have to be able to prove that you will approach any given situation representing the law. Therefore if you hold any beliefs, be they political or religious, which compromise this you, do not fit the job description.

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There could be the argument that all this talk

> about the rights of policemen to belong to

> organisations is null and void because being

> non-prejudiced is a prerequisite for the job.

>

> Hasn?t it been a long standing tenant that you are

> a policeman first and a ?whatever your religion

> is? second?

>

> So you could argue that in order to be a policeman

> you have to be able to prove that you will

> approach any given situation representing the law.

> Therefore if you hold any beliefs, be they

> political or religious, which compromise this you,

> do not fit the job description.


xxxxxx


Just had to have a quick look at the thread before I rushed off!


I used to be a community assessor for the Met (we were involved with the selection process alongside permanently employed police HR staff) and part of the process involves several role plays.


These are carefully designed to demonstrate various aptitudes (?not the right word but in a rush) necessary for police officers (or PCSOs who undergo a similar selection process) and being unprejudiced if I remember rightly was one of them. OK that's not an aptitude, but you know what I mean.


No selection process is infallible, but the Met really were doing their best to ensure they were recruiting people who would treat others fairly.


Having said that, the present process was only introduced relatively recently, so older serving police officers will have been recruited when people were oblivious to any kind of "equality" issues (I hate the word equality) and no amount of subsequent diversity training is likely to change entrenched views, though it may hopefully change behaviour.


And now I really really really must go!

Whilst I find the views espoused by the BNP repugnant, I do feel very uncomfortable will restricting the rights of an individual in a certain line of work from freedom of association. If we are to say that police/teachers etc cannot belong to the BNP is it much of a stretch to foresee a time where you could not join such a profession without being a member of an "approved" organisation?

Blimey oggers - you'll be saying that only the BNP is not an approved organisation now and that old hook-hands Hamza is probably allowed to teach next


We are surely comfortable with the fact that there ARE organisatinos we don't allow people membership of in certain professions aren't we? How many Jehova's Witnesses do you want in your local blood transfusion unit?


(although to be fair that example is more likely to be teh JW's not putting themselves forward, but still...)

sean, I think we have to separate membership of an organisation and the question of whether an individuals beliefs adversely impact their ability to do a job properly. I would say that both of the examples you mention are in the latter category.


I accept that membership of the BNP is likely to mean that an individual has an approach that is incompatable with being a police officer or teacher, but I am still uncomfortable with the direction the proscribed organisation route takes us down

Thing is, what if a policeman was a real old school tory, with no time for council tenants. He may then act differently towards youths on a council estate.


I know it's not exactly the same, but it's a viable comparison. Perhaps the answer is to ban membership of any political party, rather that just a particular one?

I was being devil's advocate a little bit oggers and I see your point - but I would genuinely argue that the BNP/Policeman combo is as valid as the 2 examples I gave


But then Keef makes a good point about how far can you go down that road as well - although even a proper old-school Tory is some way removed from what the BNP are after surely? You could say the same about left-wing police (there might be!) and say, fox-hunting in teh days when it was legal


But there is some distance between personal beliefs opposed to others AND what the BNP are aiming for, which is just beyond the pale. Trying hard not to invoke Godwin's law here but there was a time when the world was united in saying "never again" right?

Keef Wrote:

Thing is, what if a policeman was a real old school tory, with no time for council tenants. He may then act differently towards youths on a council estate...


Thing is,also,what if a policeman was an old style socialist like Michael Meacher and Viscount Anthony Wedgwood Benn and John Prescott and did not approove of the masses enjoying Home Ownership.They may act differently and show their resentment towards Home Owners(particularly Micky Meacher who had 4 Homes at the last count and rising)...

Yes Tony, that works equally as well, I wasn't trying to bully the tories!


although even a proper old-school Tory is some way removed from what the BNP are after surely?


Well yeah, never said otherwise!


At the end of the day, if there is a rule against joining an organisation, whatever it may be, then you're an idiot for joining if you value your job. However, your beliefs are still your beliefs, and membership of a group doesn't really change that. A racist copper is a racist copper!

"although even a proper old-school Tory is some way removed from what the BNP are after surely?"


I dunno, who was it sat next to Neil Hamilton when Gerald Kaufman was speaking in Parliament and he turned to said chap and said something on the lines of "why do we have to sit here and listen to this dreadful Jew"?

The chap said it was the single most odious thing he ever heard uttered in the house, his name will come to me.


Cuddly little Neil Hamilton, how everybody loves him and his have-a-go-at-anything wife on all those cuddly tv programmes they appear on.


Hate them hate them hate them.


Aaaanyway


whats the harm in giving them a fair forum to debate and thus be challenged (which then it turn leads to a measured change of opinion) If you marginalise them it will breed on secrecy, defiance and yes, extremism. Or we could smash their windows, that will sort them out



Very good point, and by the same token we mustn't make muslim organisations such as Hizb al-Tahrir illegal no matter how repugnant their views, as all that would achieve would be to drive them underground and allow them to validate their position.


As a democracy debate should be in a public domain, we have laws enough to punish crossing the line of free speech.


Nick Griffin was charged and got away with it, mind you did you see his speech, didn't look very 'speaking hypothetically' to me?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
    • Hi just got a player so looking for tapes  pm me thanks 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...