PDA

View Full Version : Police Officer Sacked because he was a member of the BNP



Lambros
21st March 2009, 19:37
A police constable whose name appeared on a leaked list of British National Party (BNP) members has been sacked, Merseyside Police said.

Pc Steve Bettley's name was on a document listing details of 12,000 people which was published online.

Merseyside Police conducted an investigation into the allegation and concluded he had "knowingly been a member of the BNP".

Mr Bettley denied being a party member and will appeal against his dismissal.

Officers and police staff are banned from joining or promoting the BNP.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/7956824.stm

NickFitz
21st March 2009, 19:55
He still denies being a member of the BNP, although the list shows his whole family. Next to his wife's name it says:


Activist. {Juvenile's name redacted by NickFitz} (15) YBNP Sup Club. Family: Stephen & {Son's name redacted by NickFitz} Bettley. Under 16s Comps slip. Discretion required re. employment concerns
Police officer

so his assertion that he was registered as a member by his wife without his knowledge may in fact be true.

It doesn't seem that likely though, to be honest :rolleyes:

BrilloPad
21st March 2009, 21:27
SErves him right.

pmeswani
21st March 2009, 21:54
A police constable whose name appeared on a leaked list of British National Party (BNP) members has been sacked, Merseyside Police said.

Pc Steve Bettley's name was on a document listing details of 12,000 people which was published online.

Merseyside Police conducted an investigation into the allegation and concluded he had "knowingly been a member of the BNP".

Mr Bettley denied being a party member and will appeal against his dismissal.

Officers and police staff are banned from joining or promoting the BNP.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/7956824.stm

If the person is innocent, then I hope they get their job back. However, if the person concerned is an active member of the BNP, then they got what they deserved.

ASB
21st March 2009, 22:03
[flameproof undies]

Personally even if he was a member of the BNP he should not have been fired. Though if he joined the police after the "you can't be any of these" employment condition its probably fair enough.

I don't like the BNP. I don't like what they stand for. But anybody is allowed to hold and share their views [within the confines of what the law allows]. It is simply wrong that one can be told what to think - even if what one does think is distateful to others.

[/flameproof undies]

ASB
21st March 2009, 23:10
"Are you now or have you ever been"...

Just wonder what Gorby said when he got his US visa.

SueEllen
21st March 2009, 23:35
[flameproof undies]

Personally even if he was a member of the BNP he should not have been fired. Though if he joined the police after the "you can't be any of these" employment condition its probably fair enough.

I don't like the BNP. I don't like what they stand for. But anybody is allowed to hold and share their views [within the confines of what the law allows]. It is simply wrong that one can be told what to think - even if what one does think is distateful to others.

[/flameproof undies]

The Race Relations Act changed after Stephen Lawrence inquiry which meant that the contracts of police and other public bodies changed. Acts of Parliament tend to override conditions in employment contracts.

Some of the amendments include duties on the Police to monitor racial equality, to promote racial equality and to make the Chief Police Officer of a force liable for any discriminatory actions of the employees under him/her.

Therefore a employee being a member of the BNP, a party who openly promote and support discrimination on the grounds of race, nationality and ethnically origin has views that openly contradict the law.

And yes the person can think what they want - they are allowed to- but they are not allowed to support or belong to certain parties or organisations if this conflicts with the interests of their job. They also have to keep their mouth shut at work or in a public place if they want to air their discriminatory views.

Many employers have conditions like this or respectively impose them on staff. As long as the staff member is aware of this and given another time to act (or argue against the change in terms) if their contract is changed then there isn't a problem.

In this case the law changed in 2000/2001 which is enough time to comply with his new contract terms.

eliquant
21st March 2009, 23:50
Agreed, it was right to sack him. If someone's ethnic background is going to have such a major impact on his decision making as a law enforcer then he should not be in law enforcement as a police officer.

Plain and simple.

ASB
22nd March 2009, 00:18
The Race Relations Act changed after Stephen Lawrence inquiry which meant that the contracts of police and other public bodies changed. Acts of Parliament tend to override conditions in employment contracts.....

I hear exactly what you say, and largely agree with it. But isn't the problem that any form of discrimination is legal - except where it is specifically illegal by statute?

Is it really impossible to hold views contrary to "normal" beliefs but be unable to put them aside?

ASB
22nd March 2009, 00:21
Agreed, it was right to sack him. If someone's ethnic background is going to have such a major impact on his decision making as a law enforcer then he should not be in law enforcement as a police officer.

Plain and simple.

But isn't that the question? Did it actually actually have any impact? There is surely simply an assumption that it would/did

minestrone
22nd March 2009, 00:49
If he could do his job then that is all that matters.

As much as I detest the BNP I am glad this country has free elections.

minestrone
22nd March 2009, 00:58
If we want to find out the real trouble makers in the police it should be the masons and their dodgy handshakes.

threaded
22nd March 2009, 05:43
If we want to find out the real trouble makers in the police it should be the masons and their dodgy handshakes.

All it'll need is a list...

pmeswani
22nd March 2009, 08:52
I hear exactly what you say, and largely agree with it. But isn't the problem that any form of discrimination is legal - except where it is specifically illegal by statute?


Sorry, I am showing a bit of :confused: on the above statement. Are you agreeing with the previous poster? :smile

With the Police Force and, possibly, other Public Services, you are required to show impartiality. Of course you are entitled to have your own discriminatory opinions, as long as they are not made public. Being a member of the BNP is a sign of making your discriminatory opinions public, even if you don't actively go out of your way to discriminate people whilst on the job. But as I have said in my first post on this thread, if the individual concerned is innocent, then I hope they get their job back.



Is it really impossible to hold views contrary to "normal" beliefs but be unable to put them aside?

No it's not. However, some people decide to join certain public groups in order to make their views known.

SueEllen
22nd March 2009, 19:58
I hear exactly what you say, and largely agree with it. But isn't the problem that any form of discrimination is legal - except where it is specifically illegal by statute?


Due to European Directives virtually every form of main stream discrimination you can think of is now illegal in the UK.

And the way laws are written in England and Wales it's up to the Courts to interpret them.

To be honest unless you going to be involved in politics, you should never join any political party or politicised organisation as you never know when it can be used against you. I was warned about this by a union rep I know.



Is it really impossible to hold views contrary to "normal" beliefs but be unable to put them aside?

Those working for public authorities have duties under various acts to promote equality in that organisation under those acts. This is very difficult when you hold openly discriminatory views.

In addition Police Forces have enough claims of discrimination against them from both employees and members of the public.

As civil cases are judged on the balance of probabilities, giving lawyers further ammunition to use against a serving member will mean that every case involving him will lead to a pay out by the force he is working for.

If the guy is innocent then unfortunately he is likely to have lost his police career anyway. He will be always under suspicion.

ace00
23rd March 2009, 08:10
If the guy is innocent then unfortunately he is likely to have lost his police career anyway. He will be always under suspicion.

Innocent of what? It's not a crime to join the BNP.
I know that when you do the SC it's a problem, cops included.

BrollyBonce
23rd March 2009, 10:31
The reality is, he was sacked for being stupid.

PM-Junkie
23rd March 2009, 10:45
Due to European Directives virtually every form of main stream discrimination you can think of is now illegal in the UK.
Except discrimination against white, heterosexual males who have a job and no criminal record.

Everything, it would appear, is our fault.

pmeswani
23rd March 2009, 10:48
Innocent of what? It's not a crime to join the BNP.
I know that when you do the SC it's a problem, cops included.

You are correct in stating that it is not a crime to be a member of the BNP. However, for some companies it is a condition of employment that you are not a member of the BNP. By not declaring the membership when cleary asked, can be seen as obtaining employment by deception, and therefore the employer is entitled to sack the employee.

pmeswani
23rd March 2009, 10:51
Except discrimination against white, heterosexual males who have a job and no criminal record.

Everything, it would appear, is our fault.

The employee is not being sacked for being white or hetrosexual. The employee is being sacked because of this public support for the BNP, which is an organisaton that is inheritly biased towards certain minority groups, which therefore appears to be making their judgement impaired, whether the employee is active or not.

minestrone
23rd March 2009, 10:55
The employee is not being sacked for being white or hetrosexual. The employee is being sacked because of this public support for the BNP, which is an organisaton that is inheritly biased towards certain minority groups, which therefore appears to be making their judgement impaired, whether the employee is active or not.

But it was not public support, the list only came out because of an illegal act.

I doubt he was goose stepping up and down the station.

Bagpuss
23rd March 2009, 11:03
If he wants to be a member of the BNP then he shouldn't join the Police force.

IMHO They should have sacked him for being thick

EternalOptimist
23rd March 2009, 11:08
In my opinion anyone who goose steps whilst on the beat, gasses people he doesnt like or invades smaller countries, or beats up people he feels to be inferior should not be alowed to stay in the police. no way, never.




:rolleyes:

PM-Junkie
23rd March 2009, 11:13
The employee is not being sacked for being white or hetrosexual. The employee is being sacked because of this public support for the BNP, which is an organisaton that is inheritly biased towards certain minority groups, which therefore appears to be making their judgement impaired, whether the employee is active or not.
Did I say he was???? If you read my post again I was answering SueEllen's point that every form of discrimination has been outlawed, when it clearly has not.

Bagpuss
23rd March 2009, 11:20
What's the world coming to when even the Police can't be racist. Next you'll be telling me that they can't beat confessions out of suspects anymore!

EternalOptimist
23rd March 2009, 11:25
The employee is not being sacked for being white or hetrosexual. The employee is being sacked because of this public support for the BNP, which is an organisaton that is inheritly biased towards certain minority groups, which therefore appears to be making their judgement impaired, whether the employee is active or not.

It's a much easier life in the thought-police eh? pmeswani



:rolleyes:

lambrini_socialist
23rd March 2009, 11:32
Innocent of what? It's not a crime to join the BNP.


exactly. and by the same token, as a non-practising paedophile it was totally unfair of the PC thought-police to sack me from my job as a swimming instructor at the local youth club.

Slumdog
23rd March 2009, 11:35
Imagine the response to non-white emergencies and the level of service. Would it be the same, i guess not

Bagpuss
23rd March 2009, 11:37
It's not the only job where you can't be a member of an organisation that is opposed to the ethics of your client/employer and to be asked such questions at interview. They don't want to employ people who would seek to destroy or impede their objectives from a dogmatic and opposing personal prefference.

EternalOptimist
23rd March 2009, 11:41
It's not the only job where you can't be a member of an organisation that is opposed to the ethics of your client/employer and to be asked such questions at interview. They don't want to employ people who would seek to destroy or impede their objectives.

but it is one of the organisations where they are trying to reflect society as a whole. Maybe we try to identify the policeman who most represents us, and have a sort of 'sponsored policeman' scheme.


:rolleyes:

Bagpuss
23rd March 2009, 11:47
You are asked the question when recruited. If you lie and are found out, then you deserve to be sacked. I don't want a police force that is unduly biased, and delivers the law subject to colour/race/ethnicity. Neither would I want to face a judge who was a member of the BNP.

BrollyBonce
23rd March 2009, 11:50
What's the world coming to when even the Police can't be racist. Next you'll be telling me that they can't beat confessions out of suspects anymore!We need an "I think you'll find" smiley

I think you'll find that's MI6's job these days and they've outsourced it to the Septics.