Racial discrimination against BNP members?

[C0ckney]

was there a boycott of the company, or was one in the process of being organised because of mr redfurn being employed by the bus company?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

This is where those magical contractual phrases "likely to.." or "..would reasonably expect..." come into play. Have a look at your own employment contract and see how often you spot them.

With such terms, the question becomes "would the employer have reasonable grounds to suspect their business interests would be damaged". It doesn't have to be a reactive process- it can be proactive.

Meanwhile, does a boycott look likely? With an emergency measure being tabled and debated at TUC congress 2005 because of this case, you can bet that publicity and protests would increase, as well as media attention. Coupled with the fact that it's in an area with a sizeable ethnic presence, and you're looking at a lot of weight to support such a belief.

[C0ckney]

without actually seeing the terms of mr redfurn's contract it's hard to say anything definite.

your final paragraph is a case of putting the cart before the horse. had mr redfurn not been sacked there would have been no case, no emergency measure at the TUC congress and no publicity surrounding the whole affair. the question the court will consider is 'at the time of mr redfurn's dismissal was there a likelihood of a boycott'. the answer is almost certainly no, but it will be interesting to see how they approach it.

let me put forward a scenario here - say you have a man who works for a bus company in tottenham, he has been a driver but no longer works directly with the public. he's a member of an organisation which condones suicide bombings in israel and is considered by most to be anti-semitic, though it does nothing illegal. would the company be able to fire him, because his membership of that organisation might damage their business interests, owing to the large jewish community in the area. following your line of reasoning the answer is obviously yes, however i'm not convinced the courts would be comfortable taking such a view.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by C0ckney
without actually seeing the terms of mr redfurn's contract it's hard to say anything definite.

your final paragraph is a case of putting the cart before the horse. had mr redfurn not been sacked there would have been no case, no emergency measure at the TUC congress and no publicity surrounding the whole affair. the question the court will consider is 'at the time of mr redfurn's dismissal was there a likelihood of a boycott'. the answer is almost certainly no

I can't say I agree with you there. Controversy does tend to surround BNP activists who get elected as councillors in areas with a lot of ethnic presence, as Mr Redfearn did. Remember that he was elected prior to his sacking.
In any event, it's not just boycotts that would be examined- it would be the wider remit of damaging business interests, of which boycotts would be just one factor- albeit a significant one.

let me put forward a scenario here - say you have a man who works for a bus company in tottenham, he has been a driver but no longer works directly with the public. he's a member of an organisation which condones suicide bombings in israel and is considered by most to be anti-semitic, though it does nothing illegal. would the company be able to fire him, because his membership of that organisation might damage their business interests, owing to the large jewish community in the area. following your line of reasoning the answer is obviously yes,

Actually, you'd be wrong. Mere membership, in my opinion, is not enough. However, actively promoting said organisation to the point of successfully getting elected as a councillor in a blaze of local publicity, significantly ups the ante and increases the risk of damaging his employer's interests, don't you think?

[C0ckney]

i wouldn't mind knowing the facts of this case and the basis on which it is being fought, do you have a link to the original judgement?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
And yet, it's those grounds that lead to his successful tribunal appeal. No wonder the TUC is pissed off.

Judges are people too so they also make mistakes.

A very high profile case has just recently ended with the Court of Final Appeals overturning the decision of the High Court that had been upheld by the Appeal Court. In fact, the Final Appeals justices blasted the High Court judge presided over the case for a bunch of mistakes he made.

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I should start a whites-only political party dedicated to the political act of staring at my female colleague's breasts whilst in the workplace.

What about making it white men only? That could bring sexual discrimination into play.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i wouldn't mind knowing the facts of this case and the basis on which it is being fought, do you have a link to the original judgement?

I haven't been able to trace it- it was an employment tribunal rather than a court case. It'll probably end up in the courts if the "racism" verdict is upheld again.

[Whaleboy]

Basic common sense really.

You have a person who is a card-carrying supporter of an ideology with all the basic elements of Nazism, with a history of violence, terrorism, anti-semitism, racial discrimination, criminality and thuggery. You would not put that person in a situation where those traits are a bad thing.

Consider, for example, a BNP supporter who wishes to register with Ofted to become a childminder. Would you have that person look after black, asian or Jewish children? Would you put that person in a position where they might disseminate those ideas to children?

Similarly, if I had a BNP supporter who seeks employment from me, in a role that involves contact with the general public where they would have to provide a service to members of an ethnic minority, I'd tell them to politely **** off.

Truth is, you can express your opinion; fine. I'm coming round to the belief that there are certain opinions that should be illegal but that's a different story... assume free speech for the moment. To express an opinion, or join a political party is an action. Actions cause consequences. These consequences may give the speaker a different set of properties to another.

In other words, to legally espouse the views of the BNP, one is quite naturally risking their employment, the respect of others, and generally being a productive member of society etc. That is, in my opinion, a good thing, because the more these scum are marginalised, the less opportunities they'll have to spread their poison.

If misguided idiots wish to make themselves less employable by joining the BNP, then that's their prerogative but they shouldn't moan when they make their own lives difficult as a result.

[Ambulance Chase]

The Court of Appeal has granted Serco leave to appeal gainst the EAT decision.

I doubt very much whether the Court of Appeal will now let Mr Redfearn abuse the race discrimination legislation in the way that he he is trying to.

I have a copy of the EAt judgment if anyone wants it, but unfortunately it is too long to post.