The so called 'legal justification' for the dismissal they quote is the Race Relations Act 2000, 2001 and 2003 which places a duty on PUBLIC BODIES to fight racism as a public body. That does not mean the duty to fight racism under the act applies ;
1) To employees of the public body
2) The scope of the duty applies to the actions of individuals outside their place of work
The race relations acts duty applies only to the public body itself and applies in relation to its employment policies, vetting policies, monitoring of its policies etc etc
This case will be won in the Employment Tribunal where the policy argument will be demolished.
The race relations act is derived from a duty defined by a European Directive and it does not trump fundamental human rights such as the right of privacy, the right to hold political memberships and have a political opinion etc etc
The race relations act and the so called duty under the act apply only to acts not thoughts or actions otside work - if a police officer did something that contravened the race relations policy whilst during work then the police would not be liable for it as the officer would be acting on a frolic of their own as defined under employment and tort law.
Therefore what an individual officer does outside work is their business and seeing as the most protected fundamental right of the ECHR is the right to join, form and stand for election in a political party then this Blunkett Fuck Up of a policy, which was enacted by that blind, crooked, drooling sex beast David Blunkett will be thrown out as soon as it gets to a tribunal.
NOTE THE VARIOUS SNIVELLING BLACK AND ETHNIC GROUPS INVOLVED IN THIS DECISION - IT APPEARS THAT BLACK COPS CAN ORGANISE AND DEMAND THE SACKING OF WHITE COPS AND THAT AINT RACISM.
Fuck ACPO and the rest of the retards of the race relations industry that have arse licked their way to the top of the pathetic police force.
http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Merseyside-Dismisses-BNP-PC_18766.html
A Merseyside Police misconduct panel has dismissed Constable Steve Bettley after concluding he had knowingly been a member of the British National Party (BNP) from March 2007 and up to March 2008.
In determining their findings the panel confirmed there was no evidence that Constable Bettley had ever displayed any racist views or discriminatory behaviour in the workplace.
The panel determined that Constable Bettley’s membership of the BNP is a clear breach of lawful orders and police regulations as the party’s views are incompatible with the duties and values of the Police Service.
Tackling discriminatory behaviour
Deputy Chief Constable Bernard Lawson said: ”Merseyside Police is committed to tackling discriminatory behaviour and building good race relations across Merseyside. As soon as we were made aware that Mr Bettley had been named on a BNP membership list an investigation was instigated and he was immediately suspended. We have an overriding legal duty to promote race equality and retain public confidence. Officers and police staff are banned from joining or promoting the BNP.
"Merseyside Police prides itself on the good community relations which have been built up with our diverse communities.
"The Force expects the highest standards of integrity and professionalism from all our staff and the decision of the panel reinforces this. Throughout this process the Force has consulted with the Black Police Association and the Independent Advisory Group."
National policy
Merseyside Police has a good record of building race relations. An Equality and Human Rights Commission report called 'Police and Racism: What has been achieved 10 years after the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report?' refers to the Force as an example of good practice in relation to the investigation into the murder of Anthony Walker.
A national policy has been in place since 2004 and this prohibits police and police staff from being members of an organisation whose constitution, aims, objectives or pronouncements contradict the general duty to promote race equality and relations with all communities. It is imperative that the attitudes, behaviour and actions of our staff support this ongoing progress.
4 comments:
"The so called 'legal justification' for the dismissal they quote is the Race Relations Act 2000, 2001 and 2003 which places a duty on PUBLIC BODIES to fight racism as a public body. That does not mean the duty to fight racism under the act applies ;
1) To employees of the public body
2) The scope of the duty applies to the actions of individuals outside their place of work"
Excatly. Obviously there line of reasoning is completely flawed. They are trying to make it stack up that anyone who works for a public body must actively be "fighting racism".
Then does it mean that the local council "sanitation engineer" (or dustman to me and you) when he discovers a perceived "racist" item amongst the rubbish of another public body worker, would he therefore be failing in his job and liable to be sacked if he did not report said article to his superiors?
Of course not, therefore the reasoning does not stack up. They are trying to dress up what is a witch hunt pure and simple.
Nothing has changed from 400 years ago. Did Matthew Hopkins, withcfinder general, simple say, "right lads, she'll do, get her and drown her in that pond just for the sake of it" - no, he dressed up his demented motivations to make them appear more reasonable. Women were selected and persecuted to send a message out, and it his authority was dressed up in legal bullshit and sanctioned by higher powers.
What's the difference?
wow, what's with calling people retards because you don't like them or what they have to say?
sadly the sacked pc publicly denounced the bnp. why support this traitor?
if he had held his head high as I have done, im on the list, then he doesn't deserve the bnp's support.
Anonymous wrote: "wow, what's with calling people retards because you don't like them or what they have to say?"
I ask:
wow, what's with calling people racists because you don't like them or what they have to say?"
Post a Comment