Homophobic firefighters???

[pugh]

This latest on management bullying and over reaction to a bit of sillyness.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/03/nfiremen103.xml

Crikey, for the press to accuse those involved of being homophobic when there is no evidence to support that is totally wrong.  My reading of the incident is that those invloved were just out for a bit of mischief.  Inappropriate use of their time and the brigade resources?  Undoubtedly.  But that is where the FA should stop and any other PC issues should be ignored.  The punishments levied far outweigh any justification given what was involved.  As for bringing the brigade into disrepute, what about the disreputable conduct of the complainant and his chums?  The discipline reg's and any procedures instigated should ALWAYS adhere to the principles of natural justice.

Had those involved in the public sexual activity been heterosexual, I don't suppose for one second that any complaint would have been made but I note that the person reporting was 'advised' to do so by a third party.  And for the brigade to then donate the fines to charity, irrespective of the nature of the charity, is completely outrageous.  Those funds should be returned to the FA budget and the correct procedures followed for such disbursements, not just handed over on the whim of some officious CFO trying to get brownie points with minority groups.

No bl***y wonder morale is at an all-time low!

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

We no longer have discipline regs ....... we comply to employment law, which is a different ball game.

[Chris Houston]

It is difficult to comment when all we have is a newspaper article.  Perhaps members will refrairn from speculation.

[Wiz]

It is difficult to comment when all we have is a newspaper article.  Perhaps members will refrairn from speculation.

Perhaps they won't. Speculation, gossip and opinion seems to be what is normally discussed on a forum.

[Chris Houston]

It is difficult to comment when all we have is a newspaper article.  Perhaps members will refrairn from speculation.

Perhaps they won't. Speculation, gossip and opinion seems to be what is normally discussed on a forum.

:lol:  Fair point, but the man in the park and the firefighter probably don't the the right of reply, I do try and steer our posters away from commenting ongoing legal and disciplinary matters.......

[kurnal]

Chris I fully agree that it would be inappropriate to speculate on the detail  of this particular case, based only on the information we have.
More generally though I think there is an underlying problem in the fire service over any disciplinary issue that could have a link to diversity, discrimination or harrassment issues.
This is all my own opinion of the service at the moment and I do respect any opposite views. But it seems to me that many of these apparently fairly trivial issues escalate beyond all proportion due to a number of factors.

Quite rightly fairness at work, harassment and diversity issues are at the top of the political  agenda within the service and have been for many years. The drivers for this were a few fairly serious cases that occurred in the past together with an increase in political awareness and influences.

The politicians saw the publics high regard for the service and the macho nature of the service and decided it would be an ideal vehicle through which to influence a wider change for the greater good of society as a whole, but needed to put its own house in order first.

The process of implementing the changes in the 1980s/90s  was in many cases heavy handed with awareness courses that were more akin to indoctrination, and persons wishing to explore the issues being presented to them by open discussion being branded as bigots or worse,  and in some cases reported to management by the instructors.

The government also had the full support of the trade union in achieving these ends and this was to be applauded- but it led to later imbalances in representation in which members charged with disciplinary offences did not have any support from their union. As the  Employer and Unions were working to a shared agenda, a potential offence  against discipline is also a breach of union policy which leaves the member without support. (Although each case is considered by the region but not in an ordered or accountable manner).

The scales of justice are tipped very firmly against individual employees who are facing charges without representation, hence the disproportionate punishments that these cases often attract.

Another factor is the fear that the actions of an individual may be portrayed as a wider institutional problem, and therefore employers are on their guard right from the outset. This tends to lead to very heavy handed investigations of what may initially appear to be a trivial matter from the outset, with local managers often taken out of the arena altogether and the incident being escalated out of proportion.

Local managers on watches and stations are often fearful of criticism and frightened of the consequences of open debate and how it may be interpreted by senior managers and therefore any meaningful debate on equality and fairness issues tends to be stifled. The fear of the thought police leads to issues being swept under the carpet - and along with it the opportunity to explore, inform, educate and influence employees to the benefits of true equality and fairness at work.

[wee brian]

The thing that gets me on this - generic - subject is that a phobia is an irrational fear of something.

So homo phobia is an iriational fear of gay people. A lot of hetrosexual guys are nervous of gay men and this can manifest itself in some sort of biggoted behaviour.

I dont think these big fines and punishments help. You can't cure somebody of aracknaphobia with a fine why do they think it will work with homophobia.  We need to understand both sides of the coin to adress this issue.

[toidi]

Great!

If the crew were in the same area and seen a different crime such as a mugging or a girl being attacked would they be fined and reprimanded for misuse of equipment- I doubt it!
But heaven forbid you interupt 4 Gays during an illegal sex act in public!

I know we Scots are meant to be stupid but if the charges were for mis-using appliances and equipment, why did the fines go to a Gay Charity?

Thankfully, there is no rumour that the terrorists who attempted to blow up Glasgow airport were gay, or John Smeaton who decked one of them would be up in court for "homophobic" behaviour!!!

The World's gone "feckin mad"

[Kaiser]

I would just like to say that the last 3 posts have been the most sensible comments about diversity that I have heard in a very long time.  Half the problem is a lack of knowledge by managers and fear of not being seen to be doing enough in the way of punishment.  Once again the fire service makes an almighty cock up which has a huge detrimental effect on the lives of individuals, but the gaffers are so scared of doing the right thing for fear of being labelled themselves.
What a sad state of affairs.

[Chris Houston]

Unless there is some other information in the public domain that I am unaware of, there has been no suggestion of illegal activity on behalf of the complainant.  And further, if there was, I would expect the fire fighters to have reported any suspicion of illegal activiy to the police........which it appears they did not......

[toidi]

Chris

I might be mistaken but I thought ANY sex in a public place was illegal  and whether it is gay sex, heterosexual sex or sex with animals -(well, I am Scottish and my friend from Aberdeen swears there are no ugly sheep, just ones who can run faster!!),being caught in the act could land you in court.

The cynical person inside me also wondered why the complainant never reported the incident to the Fire Service or even the police, but instead went to an organisation with previous history in relation to fire authorities.
The result of this fiasco is that none of the parties involved have came out in a very good light (pardon the pun!) and I agree with Kaiser that my heart goes out to the poor crew who are used as pawns in this matter.

So to all those crews who go back from a fire the "scenic route" (George Square in Glsagow springs to mind) pay close attention to what happened to this poor crew.
Think of your management within your service and how you think they would deal with a similar situation, and if you have faith in their supportive style and common sense approach to you and your colleagues then you have nothing to worry about!!

P.S.  BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID!!!

[Chris Houston]

I'm no expert (!) but I don't think having sex in public is illegal.  I think what is illegal is the act of offending another member of the public, but for example if there are no other members of the public about, then no offence has occured.

Again, it is the role of the police, not the fire service to take action against this sort of illegal activity, if any did actually occur.

I'm not wishing to get into a debate about this aspect of it, I'm just trying to point out that to be fair to the fire fighters and the complainant, it would be better if we avoided specualtion on what happened.

[toidi]

Chris
I agree with your points but I just feel that these situations always appear to be handled badly by all concerned.
A friend of mine who is still in the job was involved in the Gay pride fiasco in Strathclyde last year and there were about 5 things done wrongly before it reached the farce it ultimately became!

I apologise for posting without being in full receipt of all the facts and am the first to say that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but in general terms, it does appear that Fire authorities are so afraid of offending anyone, so they end up causing greatest harm to their own personnel.
Why is morale at an all-time low in most Fire Authorities ?- I wonder!!!

[pugh]

We seem to have diverted from my original point which was the over reaction of the FA and the labelling of those firefighters involved as homophobic.  In response to Chris, yes, an offence was committed and I copy an extract of the relevant statute below.

Male rape and buggery (1) Section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (offence of buggery) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after the words “another person” there shall be inserted the words “otherwise than in the circumstances described in subsection (1A) below”.
(3) After subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsections—
“(1A) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) are that the act of buggery takes place in private and both parties have attained the age of eighteen.
(1B) An act of buggery by one man with another shall not be treated as taking place in private if it takes place—
(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or
(b) in a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.
(1C) In any proceedings against a person for buggery with another person it shall be for the prosecutor to prove that the act of buggery took place otherwise than in private or that one of the parties to it had not attained the age of eighteen.”.

I personally couldn't care less about that though.  What people do in the privacy of their own home (or under cover of darkness in a public place) is their own business.

1.  If people are 'doing it' in public, then they should expect that they will be seen and shouldn't complain when they are, whateveer their orientation.
2.  Misuse of fire brigade resources should warrant an appropriate response from brigade managers, not an organised witch-hunt and castigation in the press.
3.  Firefighters, by and large, are a very tolerant group.  For brigade managers to allow them to be labelled 'homophobic' is, in itself, bringing the service into disrepute and they should be answerable (my opinion).  But, of course, they won't be as they have to toady up to the town hall mandarins who are obliged to take far more notice of minorities than this issue warrants.

'nuff said.  I'm going for a beer!

[maineroad]

no sign of the FBU then, just the usual lame comment.