oh blimey - dulwich bnp

[SeanMacGabhann]

Piers - quick! Spelling error ahoy!

[Sue]

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!

[Brendan]

were?

[Brendan]

Sorry. Where?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

There, there, everyone's allowed a sp. error occasionally.

[Jeremy]

I do believe in democracy and freedom of speech, and all that... but I also believe that rooting out racism in the police and armed forces is important. And if sacrifices to our ideology have to be made, then so be it.

[Lizziedjango]

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).

[Brendan]

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.

[SeanMacGabhann]

well, that and having small feet

[SeanMacGabhann]

Anyone googling the LIST of BNP MEMBERS should now also find a pretty funny dialogue between Maurice Levy.. er I mean the BNP solicitor and the website owner

[Sue]

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!

[AcedOut]

But a role play is simply acting. I emphasise the word 'act'. Is this really going to catch the true racists out there? I suspect not.

[david_carnell]

BNP member + policeman = this: (only not as funny)

 

[Rook]

.

.

[matthew123]

If we're not careful they'll soon be marching down LL in full KKK regalia - perhaps it would be best to send them off to Guantanamo Bay before the Allied Forces start bombing East Dulwich

[oggers]

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?

[Rook]

.

[SeanMacGabhann]

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...)

[oggers]

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

[Keef]

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?

[SeanMacGabhann]

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?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

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)...

[Keef]

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!

[mockney piers]

"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?

[LibraCarr]

Hi,

I may have missed the point but who is it that actually owns Brighton Nuclear Power? Does this mean that we are going to have a wind farm in East Dulwich. And will that awful DJ 'Diddy' Hamilton do the voice over's for the adverts?.

Regards,

Libra Carr.