fbu bnp

[maineroad]

is the fbu right to try & get persons who are members of this party & ff sacked ,after all however much many of us find thier policies unpleasant they are a party & a increasing number of persons ,both in & out of the job choice,would it not be better to find the root cause than deny it as a problem all togeather?

[messy]

I think you'll find Dorset FB tried and were unsuccessful at banning their workforce from joining such right wing groups by stating that it's already Police & Prison Service policy, so why not fire service? I understand that attempt failed.

My view is, however unpleasant BNP and similar groups are (and they undoubtably are!), whilst they are legal I can see no reason to ban (or sack) employees from being members or supporting them. An individual is not their Fire Authority's property, and as long as their behaviour whilst at work is not affected by their interests, no action should be taken.

It's the thin edge of the wedge to allow your Govt, employer or (in our case) Union to tell you how to think and not allow  freedom of expression (obviously within the law).

George Orwell coined the term 'Thought Police' and was apparently right in his predictions, despite being 22 years out!

[kurnal]

No the FBU would be wrong to try and tackle this problem in this way. In a democracy issues such as this should be won or lost on the strength of the argument and quality of debate. Anything else amounts to blackmail, bullying, or intimidation and stoops to the level and tactics of the organisation they seek to destroy.
Adolf Hitler came to power and the holocaust happened because public ill feeling was whipped up and focussed on another minority group, and the general population gradually brainwashed to the point that they did nothing to prevent it. By considering such initiatives perhaps they do their own cause more harm than the target organisation could possibly achieve themselves!

[Martin Burford]

In the February edition of the IFE journal, page 33, it states "  A growing body of evidence suggests that the next major loss of life will be in a school fire " ...........what is this evidence... as I cannot recall reading such reports. Can anyone help in directing me to these written, published documents.
Conqueror

[Chris Houston]

In the February edition of the IFE journal, page 33, it states "  A growing body of evidence suggests that the next major loss of life will be in a school fire " ...........what is this evidence... as I cannot recall reading such reports. Can anyone help in directing me to these written, published documents.
Conqueror

Conqueror, you seem to be off-topic on this one, can you re-post this as a new thread and I canthen delete the above post please.

[dave bev]

lets get things into perspective - what do the bnp stand for, what are their policies? if you believe there is a place in the f&rs for people (and i use the term loosely) who hold and express such views then consider this. how would they react to helping a work colleague or member of the public they consider as not worth helping?

just to clarify a point, when you say the 'fbu' - it was the fbu members who had the opportunity to vote for or against a resolution put to annual conference. the membership, through their representatives voted on the issue and directed fbu officials to follow a course of action. how can that be wrong in any issues of democracy?

can you really put your hand on your heart and say there is a place within the f&rs for people who judge others by the colour of their skin?

dave bev

[kurnal]

Dave I think your reply is quite shocking. And speaks volumes.

It is absolutely outrageous to judge someone by the colour of their skin, sexual orientation, culture or any other characteristic. We all deserve to be treated with dignity, decency and respect. I know you agree with that.

So why are  you singling out a group of people for special attention because they say something that you disagree with?
Why do you try to punish them for their beliefs, however misguided you think they may be?
Why is it ok for you to try and have them dismssed because of what they say they believe?
What evidence have you to show that they cannot place their political views on one side and act  professionally in their work?
I find your attitude disturbing. And I'm not trying to defend their views in any way shape or form. My family suffered terribly in the hands of the nazis. But I still feel they have the right to hold ther own personal views without persecution from others. Lets have a free and open debate without fears of repocussions. And only then do we have a chance of defeating their argument and though we may not convince them personally we may strengthen our own argument and following through open debate.

[Andy Cole]

Would these people even get a job in the frs in the first place now in the days of psychometric testing and personality profiles all being such a big part in the recruitment process?

I agree with both arguments to an extent, It isn't their political motivations that are an issue really more the sort of person you must be to form alligances with a party who hold and manifest such outrageous views and policies!, I'm not by any means claiming to know the details of the party's manifesto and to be quite honest I don't have any desire to do so!

[kurnal]

The recruitment and selection procedure should just measure whether someone will be able to do the job and to select those who may be able, on the information obtained to do the job best of all.
Whether political views are considered or not is a moot point. To fail to appoint someone purely on their membership of a political party  or even extremist views views amounts to discrimmination in my view, unless those views manifest themselves in some job related way.
I have known some senior officials of the Union in the past who have been members of extreme left wing organisations in the past- parties whose manifesto was to bring down the form of democracy as we know it in the UK and replace it with a much more extreme socialist regime. I don't remember the Union doing anything to curb their activities at the time.

In my view we should let these sleeping dogs lie. Politics and religion is what its all about.  
I guess most of us would agree that where an individual is born into a culture, ethnic group, of one sex or another, or with disabilities, they have no choice over that and society should ensure that they enjoy equal opportunites in all aspects of their life.

But some things, like religion and politics, whilst shaped by your culture and upbringing may have an element of choice.

Some people may take a view that if you make a deliberate  choice in respect of your politics then that choice should debar you from certain career opportunity. Thats fine but there are always people with opposite views and one day the power may switch sides! While Daves side is in power the BNP are banned. But if one day (heaven forbid) the BNP took power Daves side may be banned!

Is politics a choice that we freely make ? Is religion a choice? Or is is something that is so tightly bound to our upbringing and culture that we can never escape i? I think this is the case for most of us. There are examples of those who do break the chains. But they are a very small minority.  So I believe it is wrong to discriminate on grounds of political views.

[dave bev]

lets get things into perspective - what do the bnp stand for, what are their policies? if you believe there is a place in the f&rs for people (and i use the term loosely) who hold and express such views ........
dave bev

i think my post makes the point re someone holding and expressing their views - thats a bit different than just holding those views, but lets get honest ........

in a society that values others why should that society value those who dont value society itself?

in a society that has laws as to behaviour and expressions (and we do) why would we want to allow those very actions that society has deemed unlawful?

i really dont see your point - you seem to be suggesting that just because someone believes that they have a right to express their views without resultant action then they should be allowed to do so. i suggest you think again. develop that to the nth degree ......... i can do what i like with no recourse, even if its against the law or the rules of society and i have the right to do so without recourse.

of course that still leaves room for those who hold those views but dont express them, perhaps you might wish to read my post again to comfirm what i actually said!

i never once said we should discriminate against those with differing political views, but you seem to have steered the debate away from the points i made to make your own argument seem logical.

[kurnal]

Dave
Thanks for your reply.
I still see nothing wrong with expressing views - an open discussion even of difficult subjects over the coffee table is good, as long it is a discussion and does not resort to abuse or harassment.
But it was what came after your quote that lit my touchpaper. "how would they react to helping a work colleague or member of the public they consider as not worth helping?" - as though you dont credit all firefighters with certain bounds of professionalism that transcend political views or anything else for that matter.

Were you in the service in the late 70s and early 80s? do you remember the era of the thought police, the days of the extrme administrations in Liverpool and Derbyshire? An apology for equal opportunities training, at which we were told what to say and what to think, and that to utter any views outside the official line in the workplace would be treated as gross misconduct? When any attempt at open discussion of the points raised in the course were reported to the management and the individuals were seen by senior management? And at the same time my Union  brigade secretary was a signed up  member of the SWP  so by definition was working to overturn the democratic system of this country.   But that was seen as a good thing. And remember the days of a couple of colleagues, guilty only of using a few ill chosen words at the coffee table on full scale disciplinary hearings without any representation from their union. So every time I hear echoes of those days I react.

[dave bev]

and thats where we differ. i dont believe for one second that any discussion around bnp issues from bnp members would amount to anything other than harassment and bullying. my comment how would they react - perhaps you can see again i was referring to 'someone expressing their views' and not the thoughts they keep to themselves. you again bring in issues not related to the discussion i.e. 'not crediting all ff's etc .....' a typical popularist statement with only one purpose, that of challenging my argument by your interpretation of what i say - i did NOT say that!

my length of service is irrelevant - are you suggesting that because i may not have been in the fire service for long my views are not valid? but as you ask i offer the following

i have been in the fire service over 28 years, having joined in may 1978. i joined on and worked a 48 hour shift system moving to a 42 hour system. i have worked on a variety of different types of stations and got my first promotion as temp lf for 14 months at moss side m/cr - finally being promoted after almost 8 years as a firefighter. i passed my stn o exam as a ff (when you had to pass all the papers at the same time - no referals) i passed my corporate membership of the IFE as a lff (again when you had to pass all the papers at the same time - no referals) - i worked in fshq at mcr as part of the ops dept on a day shift system (a priveledged position at the time - under gordon price and john barber - extremely experienced practical officers who didnt suffer fools at all, never mind gladly). my main reference being the brigade hazmats 'specialist' officer. i used to set questions for and mark the corporate membership of the ife question papers and am probably one of the very few who has marked the preliminary, graduate and corporate membership exams of the ife!

i transferred to essex as an ado to an ado's position - officer in charge of one wholetime and three retained stations, working a 78 hour flexible duty system. on restructure it was changed to stn commander of the wholetime station. after 6 years as stn commander i then moved into cfs at the same time as my trade union activities really started to take hold, because i believed i could make a difference instead of being one of the many who make many comments but carry out very little action to make that difference. i represented officer members in essex during the disputes in essex and was a member of the essex strike committee during the second strike. i was then elected as regional representative to the officers national committee. having served on that national committee for a number of years, i was elected as officers national committee secretary. i act as lead official on cfs issues as well as advising the executive council and national officials on many technical issues and response papers in particular r2r, ipds, adc's, haz mats, fire safety and rotas. i was the originator of the intervention window and helped develop it into the irmp fbu policy. i wrote the policy on home fire safety visits that many fire brigades use and also wrote the child safety policy that most brigades use. i work closely with cfoa on a variety of issues, the most current being the planning document for fire safety planning of establishments, attacks on firefighters (violence at work) and the radiation technical training document (nominated because of my competence). i sit on the national joint council when i have nothing else to do and was part of the working group that developed the r2r process.

i now work full time for the fbu who pay my wage though am still employed by ecfrs, but thanks for asking , was there any particular reason you asked?

ps, for those of you that didnt fall asleep/get bored with a brief resume of how long have got in, i wish to add i am also available to make appearances at barmitzvas, weddings, funerals, birthday parties and any officer meeting i am invited to attend!


ok, the real point - i dont give a toss how long anyone has been in the job, and neither did i think does it matter in this forum. its what someone brings to the debate not the package they carry it in! or are comments only valid if your helmet is the right colour or your t-shirts faded depicting seniority?

ok, back to the debate after that brief interlude. the swp is a political organisation that doesnt judge people by the colour of their skin, their religion or country of origin. i could go on but it is irrelevant, we're not talking about other political parties, we're talking about the bnp - stick with the topic and perhaps answer all the questions i asked, not just the ones you choose to answer

how about

'can you really put your hand on your heart and say there is a place within the f&rs for people who judge others by the colour of their skin?'

dave bev

[maineroad]

dave ,when i was recently hounded out of my job ,via hospital & a pension along with 4 others I asked the FBU official does anyone care about my rights as I had been verbally threatened ,lies told,cleared of all inital charges until eleventh hour crap cobbled up to prop up the whole affair put me in hospital,the answer about my rights was ,what do you expect you are a white male,the official was just telling me how it is,so Dave people are judged by thier colour just not allways as people think,over to the floor,p.s all the above is sadly true

[dave bev]

maineroad, we have discussed this in private before as we know each other quite well. i cannot and would not defend any actions taken by anyone in your case which sadly as you say is true and i personally feel was scandalous. although i understand your comment it isnt really the question that you originally asked and because i do know you, i understand why you asked the question in the way you did.

in my opinion the fbu as an organisation sometimes get things wrong, elected officials of the fbu sometimes get things wrong.

dave bev

[kurnal]

No there is no place in the fire and rescue service for people who judge others by the colour of their skin. But there is also no place in civilised society for them either. Sadly both these statements are ideals. And completely impractical. So the best way forward is to inform,educate, share ideals, argue, and aspire. But this means tiny steps taken in a focussed and uniform way across society. Its no good singling out the fire service as a special case. This will just compartment and alienate groups of people and confirm and intensify prejudice. The only way forward is to engage with them and whilst you may not change their views hearing the arguments openly exchanged will influence others.

And while we are doing it lets not forget to ask the question of whether there are truly equal opportunities within other cultures and religions who contribute to our wonderfully diverse society within the UK. I am not convinced that there are.  But sorry Dave I forgot- I'm not allowed to ask a supplementary. Its just that its too complex a subject to ask a question as simple as yours. I work a lot with migrant workers at the moment and there are some very worrying issues and subcultures that need sorting. But nobody represents them. Perhaps its time we realigned the way unions are organised and structures to represent all workers with state funding (and a new czar!!!). The number of workers without access to representation is increasing. Perhaps another job for you Dave.