BNP and the police

[GlesgaeHibby]

Now that the BNP party members list has leaked and some policemen have been found to be on the list, I pose the question;

Why should they lose their job over this/not be entitled to join the police if they are a member of the BNP?

(I'm in no way sticking up for the BNP, they are a vile organisation)

As we live in a democratic society, and the BNP are a political party is it not possible for people to use their democratic right to support any political party? Why then should the following of a particular party discriminate you from certain jobs? I appreciate that the BNP are a far right party with some racist views but to think that banning BNP members from joining the police will stop racists entering the police force is quite simply false. In a democracy, people should have the right to believe what they want as long as they abide by the law, and that includes joining any recognised political party. I would like to hope that, although some will always support the BNP and their radical nonsense, in a democracy good will prevail.

To vote for/support a political party does not require you to agree with everything they say. I, as an example, pick the party with the most policies I agree on at the current time. Some people may agree with a certain amount of BNP policies, and not agree with others yet still support them.

It is an interesting case because if we prevent people from joining the police it is undemocratic and (on a completely different scale) Hitler like. We are excluding a group of people due to their belief system. On the other hand, knowing they are a vile organisation, preventing them entering a front line public service is for the good of society as a whole.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I didn't think Police were allowed to be members of any political party?

[Barney McGrew]

I didn't think Police were allowed to be members of any political party?

They can be a member of a political party.

The problem with the BNP is their rules in regard to white only membership, which is in direct contrast to the Police's policy on all racial and ethnic backgrounds being allowed to join them.

That's why they rightly ban acting officers from joining those fruitcakes.

[GlesgaeHibby]

They can be a member of a political party.

The problem with the BNP is their rules in regard to white only membership, which is in direct contrast to the Police's policy on all racial and ethnic backgrounds being allowed to join them.

That's why they rightly ban acting officers from joining those fruitcakes.

So with purely exclusive membership, is the BNP really a political party at all, or merely a faction/organisation?

[CropleyWasGod]

Whilst I share the OP's unease about the democracy of the Police's rules, I think that those officers who join the BNP can't really complain when they get found out. The rules are there.

What I can't understand is why the Talk Radio DJ has been dropped.

[Greentinted]

Its hardly a shock that such a large organisation as the cops (particularly the cops) have a few BNP members in their ranks (I would aver also that there are many more who stick a cross by the BNP ticket at voting time), but what is really disturbing is the capacious nature of this membership.

As for the DJ being no longer required, in what is a democracy (and yes I know the BNP are hardly democratic in essence but thats another thesis), surely this is wrong. If his political persuasion doesnt/hasnt impacted on his job I would suggest his employers have been a tad previous.
Having said all that, I, like so many, are only going by what the media deem it appropriate to feed us.

[I'm_cabbaged]

They can be a member of a political party.

The problem with the BNP is their rules in regard to white only membership, which is in direct contrast to the Police's policy on all racial and ethnic backgrounds being allowed to join them.

That's why they rightly ban acting officers from joining those fruitcakes.


What about the Orange Lodge?

[Mibbes Aye]

Now that the BNP party members list has leaked and some policemen have been found to be on the list, I pose the question;

Why should they lose their job over this/not be entitled to join the police if they are a member of the BNP?

(I'm in no way sticking up for the BNP, they are a vile organisation)

As we live in a democratic society, and the BNP are a political party is it not possible for people to use their democratic right to support any political party? Why then should the following of a particular party discriminate you from certain jobs? I appreciate that the BNP are a far right party with some racist views but to think that banning BNP members from joining the police will stop racists entering the police force is quite simply false. In a democracy, people should have the right to believe what they want as long as they abide by the law, and that includes joining any recognised political party. I would like to hope that, although some will always support the BNP and their radical nonsense, in a democracy good will prevail.

To vote for/support a political party does not require you to agree with everything they say. I, as an example, pick the party with the most policies I agree on at the current time. Some people may agree with a certain amount of BNP policies, and not agree with others yet still support them.

It is an interesting case because if we prevent people from joining the police it is undemocratic and (on a completely different scale) Hitler like. We are excluding a group of people due to their belief system. On the other hand, knowing they are a vile organisation, preventing them entering a front line public service is for the good of society as a whole.

The police base their decision on not allowing BNP membership on the grounds of racial equality legislation which places a duty on public sector bodies to promote racial equality.

Their interpretation of that is that BNP membership is incompatible with the police service meeting that duty. Other public sector bodies haven't gone as far as that and the whole thing could be subject to legal challenge, but as yet no one has challenged it.

[Sir David Gray]

Now that the BNP party members list has leaked and some policemen have been found to be on the list, I pose the question;

Why should they lose their job over this/not be entitled to join the police if they are a member of the BNP?

(I'm in no way sticking up for the BNP, they are a vile organisation)

As we live in a democratic society, and the BNP are a political party is it not possible for people to use their democratic right to support any political party? Why then should the following of a particular party discriminate you from certain jobs? I appreciate that the BNP are a far right party with some racist views but to think that banning BNP members from joining the police will stop racists entering the police force is quite simply false. In a democracy, people should have the right to believe what they want as long as they abide by the law, and that includes joining any recognised political party. I would like to hope that, although some will always support the BNP and their radical nonsense, in a democracy good will prevail.

To vote for/support a political party does not require you to agree with everything they say. I, as an example, pick the party with the most policies I agree on at the current time. Some people may agree with a certain amount of BNP policies, and not agree with others yet still support them.

It is an interesting case because if we prevent people from joining the police it is undemocratic and (on a completely different scale) Hitler like. We are excluding a group of people due to their belief system. On the other hand, knowing they are a vile organisation, preventing them entering a front line public service is for the good of society as a whole.

I actually had a similar conversation with someone earlier today on this very subject and I tend to agree with what you're saying.

Like you, I am no BNP apologist, and would never vote for them in a million years. However I don't think people should be sacked from their job because of their personal beliefs whether they be politically or religiously based and/or extreme in nature.

I would only sack someone if they tried to force their extreme political or religious beliefs onto other people or their beliefs influenced the way they did their job. So in the case of a police officer, so long as he/she treated everyone the same, regardless of skin colour, then I don't see a problem with them being members of the BNP. The same goes for teachers, so long as they do not try to influence the children in their care to become Nazis, for example, then I don't see a problem with it. I accept it might be a bit of an issue if you teach either History or Modern Studies but in most cases (i.e. English, Maths, Home Economics etc) I don't see the problem.

I have opinions on certain issues that some people will disagree with. However I usually choose to keep those opinions to myself and I would never go out of my way to deliberately offend someone who happens to disagree with those opinions. Also, I certainly would never let my opinions affect the way in which I do my job and the way I deal with people.

In short, I strongly believe that it is possible to have strong and unpopular beliefs and still carry out your job in a normal manner and for those that are able to keep the two separate, I do not think those people should be sacked. Those that can't do it should be the ones targeted and vilified.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I actually had a similar conversation with someone earlier today on this very subject and I tend to agree with what you're saying.

Like you, I am no BNP apologist, and would never vote for them in a million years. However I don't think people should be sacked from their job because of their personal beliefs whether they be politically or religiously based and/or extreme in nature.

I would only sack someone if they tried to force their extreme political or religious beliefs onto other people or their beliefs influenced the way they did their job. So in the case of a police officer, so long as he/she treated everyone the same, regardless of skin colour, then I don't see a problem with them being members of the BNP. The same goes for teachers, so long as they do not try to influence the children in their care to become Nazis, for example, then I don't see a problem with it. I accept it might be a bit of an issue if you teach either History or Modern Studies but in most cases (i.e. English, Maths, Home Economics etc) I don't see the problem.

I have opinions on certain issues that some people will disagree with. However I usually choose to keep those opinions to myself and I would never go out of my way to deliberately offend someone who happens to disagree with those opinions. Also, I certainly would never let my opinions affect the way in which I do my job and the way I deal with people.

In short, I strongly believe that it is possible to have strong and unpopular beliefs and still carry out your job in a normal manner and for those that are able to keep the two separate, I do not think those people should be sacked. Those that can't do it should be the ones targeted and vilified.

Therein lies the problem. I'd say that the system of belief that leads to someone becoming a member of the BNP would, implicitly, stop them from behaving in an entirely egalitarian nature and complying with equality legislation (the Race Relations Act) - particularly with regards to teachers, police and similar occupations.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Therein lies the problem. I'd say that the system of belief that leads to someone becoming a member of the BNP would, implicitly, stop them from behaving in an entirely egalitarian nature and complying with equality legislation (the Race Relations Act) - particularly with regards to teachers, police and similar occupations.

Where do you draw the line though? Its ok to join the police and be socialist, its ok to join the teaching profession and have far left views. There is a chance then that a far left teacher would give richer kids a poorer education and focus on giving the poorer kids a better education.

You could be a member of a radical religious group and join the police, but surely then you would victimise people of other religious dispositions.

And if equality legislation prevents BNP members joining the police force, why has it not been extended to the whole of the public sector?

[Phil D. Rolls]

What about the Orange Lodge?

Or the Catholic Church? :duck:

[SlickShoes]

Now that the BNP party members list has leaked and some policemen have been found to be on the list, I pose the question;

Why should they lose their job over this/not be entitled to join the police if they are a member of the BNP?

(I'm in no way sticking up for the BNP, they are a vile organisation)

As we live in a democratic society, and the BNP are a political party is it not possible for people to use their democratic right to support any political party? Why then should the following of a particular party discriminate you from certain jobs? I appreciate that the BNP are a far right party with some racist views but to think that banning BNP members from joining the police will stop racists entering the police force is quite simply false. In a democracy, people should have the right to believe what they want as long as they abide by the law, and that includes joining any recognised political party. I would like to hope that, although some will always support the BNP and their radical nonsense, in a democracy good will prevail.

To vote for/support a political party does not require you to agree with everything they say. I, as an example, pick the party with the most policies I agree on at the current time. Some people may agree with a certain amount of BNP policies, and not agree with others yet still support them.

It is an interesting case because if we prevent people from joining the police it is undemocratic and (on a completely different scale) Hitler like. We are excluding a group of people due to their belief system. On the other hand, knowing they are a vile organisation, preventing them entering a front line public service is for the good of society as a whole.

Sorry but the BNP are a Racist faction disguised as a political party. Anyone who votes for the BNP or becomes a member knows fully well that they are on step away from wearing white robes and hoods and having secret meetings.

Honestly cannot believe the sympathy the BNP are getting here, they are disgusting and vile human beings, they deserve whatever they get as there is NO WAY that any person is less of a human being based on the color of there skin.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Where do you draw the line though? Its ok to join the police and be socialist, its ok to join the teaching profession and have far left views. There is a chance then that a far left teacher would give richer kids a poorer education and focus on giving the poorer kids a better education.

You could be a member of a radical religious group and join the police, but surely then you would victimise people of other religious dispositions.

And if equality legislation prevents BNP members joining the police force, why has it not been extended to the whole of the public sector?

That relies on an equivalencing of far-left and far-right ideology, which I'm obviously not going to agree with.

I'm not sure you're teaching analogy is very likely, but I'm sure an argument could be made as to why a member of the SWP shouldn't be able to join the police.

[lyonhibs]

I actually had a similar conversation with someone earlier today on this very subject and I tend to agree with what you're saying.

Like you, I am no BNP apologist, and would never vote for them in a million years. However I don't think people should be sacked from their job because of their personal beliefs whether they be politically or religiously based and/or extreme in nature.

I would only sack someone if they tried to force their extreme political or religious beliefs onto other people or their beliefs influenced the way they did their job. So in the case of a police officer, so long as he/she treated everyone the same, regardless of skin colour, then I don't see a problem with them being members of the BNP. The same goes for teachers, so long as they do not try to influence the children in their care to become Nazis, for example, then I don't see a problem with it. I accept it might be a bit of an issue if you teach either History or Modern Studies but in most cases (i.e. English, Maths, Home Economics etc) I don't see the problem.

I have opinions on certain issues that some people will disagree with. However I usually choose to keep those opinions to myself and I would never go out of my way to deliberately offend someone who happens to disagree with those opinions. Also, I certainly would never let my opinions affect the way in which I do my job and the way I deal with people.

In short, I strongly believe that it is possible to have strong and unpopular beliefs and still carry out your job in a normal manner and for those that are able to keep the two separate, I do not think those people should be sacked. Those that can't do it should be the ones targeted and vilified.

The bit on bold, whilst laudable and something I agree with (in theory) is also somewhat optimistic. Far be it from me to waste my time trying to pyschoanalyse a racist - er, BNP member - but someone who actively subscribes to the policies of said party is - IMO - unlikely to carry out the functions of his/her public duty in a even-handed and acceptable way when said functions bring him/her into situations that cause the in-built prejudices of the BNP (and its supporters) to rise to the surface.

Example: BNP affiliated policeman called to a assault by victim. Pakistani lad lies on ground with bleeding head. There are no witnesses, but his (policeman's) partner collars a white male walking away from the scene and generally looking a bit shifty. Now, I don't know what police procedure is in this situation re: questioning at the station/searching the white youth on the spot, but I'd venture that BNP affiliated Bobby might carry them out somewhat less assidously then if the skin colour/origin of victim/potential culprit were reversed.

And the BNP have a white-only membership policy??? That's news to me, though hardly unsurprising!!

[Mibbes Aye]

Where do you draw the line though? Its ok to join the police and be socialist, its ok to join the teaching profession and have far left views. There is a chance then that a far left teacher would give richer kids a poorer education and focus on giving the poorer kids a better education.

You could be a member of a radical religious group and join the police, but surely then you would victimise people of other religious dispositions.

And if equality legislation prevents BNP members joining the police force, why has it not been extended to the whole of the public sector?

The duty on public sector bodies is a general one to promote racial equality. There are other related general duties and some specific ones as well.

ACPO chose to interpret the legislation as meaning that membership of the BNP was incompatible with serving as a police officer. I'm sure anyone could challenge that in court if they wanted to - the fact that no one has (as far as I'm aware) could lead you to a number of conclusions I suppose.

Expelling someone from a trade union for membership of the BNP has already been upheld as legal by the European Court of Human Rights so there is a bit of precedent around the incompatibility issue although that's in relation to association rather than employment.

[Jack]

Whilst we supposedly live in a democracy, organisations like the police, don’t have to operate democratically when it comes to deciding what their recruitment and other policies should be. Public organisations generally work to a common set of values where every member of the community is treated fairly and equally. The fundamental beliefs of organisations like the BNP undermine these values and therefore their members are barred from taking up ‘sensitive’ positions.

I seem to remember similar restrictions being placed on other ‘political’ groups when I was a union rep. Card carrying members of the Communist Party, for example, were not allowed on Ministry of Defence property. This meant some reps and other union officials could not carry out their union duties properly in these places.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Sorry but the BNP are a Racist faction disguised as a political party. Anyone who votes for the BNP or becomes a member knows fully well that they are on step away from wearing white robes and hoods and having secret meetings.

Honestly cannot believe the sympathy the BNP are getting here, they are disgusting and vile human beings, they deserve whatever they get as there is NO WAY that any person is less of a human being based on the color of there skin.

Of course they are a racist faction disguised as a political party, and I hate their very existance BUT at the end of the day if we do live in a democracy people can hold whatever views they like, no matter how extreme, provided they adhere to the Laws of the land.

A radically religious person is IMO just as much danger to society as a radically racist person.

[Sir David Gray]

The bit on bold, whilst laudable and something I agree with (in theory) is also somewhat optimistic. Far be it from me to waste my time trying to pyschoanalyse a racist - er, BNP member - but someone who actively subscribes to the policies of said party is - IMO - unlikely to carry out the functions of his/her public duty in a even-handed and acceptable way when said functions bring him/her into situations that cause the in-built prejudices of the BNP (and its supporters) to rise to the surface.

Example: BNP affiliated policeman called to a assault by victim. Pakistani lad lies on ground with bleeding head. There are no witnesses, but his (policeman's) partner collars a white male walking away from the scene and generally looking a bit shifty. Now, I don't know what police procedure is in this situation re: questioning at the station/searching the white youth on the spot, but I'd venture that BNP affiliated Bobby might carry them out somewhat less assidously then if the skin colour/origin of victim/potential culprit were reversed.

And the BNP have a white-only membership policy??? That's news to me, though hardly unsurprising!!

I realise that the vast majority of people who sign up to the BNP will be pure racist thugs who have no informed reasoning to back up their beliefs and will therefore find it almost impossible to act in a proper manner that befits a police officer or a teacher.

But are we, as a nation, not better to judge people solely on their actions rather than on their beliefs and opinions and wait until the person has actually done something wrong before sacking them from their job?

At the end of the day, whether you like it or I like it, the BNP is a legitimate British political party and IMO people of all occupations should be allowed to hold full membership of the BNP and still keep their job, so long as they do their job in the correct and proper manner, in the same way that anyone can hold membership of the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Socialist party, UKIP or the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

The first sign that someone is abusing their position to satisfy their views is when they should be told where the door is.

[Darth Hibbie]

I didn't think Police were allowed to be members of any political party?

Think its that they are not allowed to undertake any actvity for a political party rather than support. Not sure where financial support lies?


What about the Orange Lodge?


Or the Catholic Church? :duck:

Not that I paricularly like any three of organisations but the big difference is if you wanted to join the orange lodge or catholic church then it would simply be a case of changing your religion. It is no that easy with the BNP you cannot make yourself a white british person overnight.

whilst I do not really understand why someone would want to join the BNP if they are a regognised political party then you are enitled to support them if you wish and it should not really prevent you from certain employment, however if you allow those views to interfere with your work that is a different matter ie you do not treat people equally.

[gringojoe]

I'd imagine that as a Police Officer you are meant to be fair minded and unbiased against individuals or groups of people and treat everybody the same so being a member of the BNP might make it a wee bit awkward to do that.
Sort of like refs are meant to treat players and teams the same, now if those ideas would catch on............

[Greentinted]

I'd imagine that as a Police Officer you are meant to be fair minded and unbiased against individuals or groups of people and treat everybody the same so being a member of the BNP might make it a wee bit awkward to do that.
Sort of like refs are meant to treat players and teams the same, now if those ideas would catch on............

While I concur with your laudable imagination I fear it has been a long, long time (if indeed ever) since the words police, officer, fair-minded and unbiased were comfortable bedfellows.

[CowBoy]

Because all companies and public bodies are bound by the responsibility to treat all British citizens equally. Membership of the BNP is considered to be in violation of the obligations an employee has to his employer on two levels:

(a) To be impartial and unprejudiced in all dealings with customers

(b) To breach the bond of trust between the public and the body that employs you thereby bringing the organisation into disrepute.

This is because members of the holocaust denying anti-semitic BNP cannot be trusted to be impartial in their dealings with members of the Jewish community, to use just one example. Any organisation that employs a member of a racist anti-semitic body becomes tarnished therefore. It's a question of predisposition, prejudice, trust and fairness.

If a police officer was investigating a racially motivated assault would he be sympathetic to the victim ? Or would he just give him a pat on the back and tell him to go home ......

[capitals_finest]

For the sake of democracy it is in all of our interests to protect peoples opinions whatever they may be. However we also require a police force to be objective and free from prejudice. This is difficult as everyone has their own beliefs and opinions but to be part of an extremist organisation like the BNP that has such prejudiced views is not acceptable. Membership is banned and rightly so. It is right that they are booted out.

Same should apply to any of the emergency services IMO. Not the military though.

[LiverpoolHibs]

For the sake of democracy it is in all of our interests to protect peoples opinions whatever they may be. However we also require a police force to be objective and free from prejudice. This is difficult as everyone has their own beliefs and opinions but to be part of an extremist organisation like the BNP that has such prejudiced views is not acceptable. Membership is banned and rightly so. It is right that they are booted out.

Same should apply to any of the emergency services IMO. Not the military though.

Why the police and emergency services but not the military out of interest?

[lyonhibs]

Why the police and emergency services but not the military out of interest?

:agree: :agree: I'm intrigued. I'd love to imagine what the default mind-set of a BNP sympathetic squaddie on duty in Afghanistan right now might be.

All those Muslims milling around might be a bit like a red rag to a bull.

[Hibrandenburg]

:agree: :agree: I'm intrigued. I'd love to imagine what the default mind-set of a BNP sympathetic squaddie on duty in Afghanistan right now might be.

All those Muslims milling around might be a bit like a red rag to a bull.


Why does everyone seem to have an obsession with painting squaddies with the image of being raving loonatics running around with foam at the mouth and just waiting for the chance to toss babies in the air and catch them on their bayonetts? :dunno:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Why does everyone seem to have an obsession with painting squaddies with the image of being raving loonatics running around with foam at the mouth and just waiting for the chance to toss babies in the air and catch them on their bayonetts? :dunno:

Ever been on a night out in Aldershot? :wink:

Only kidding! :duck:

He wasn't talking about your average squaddie, was he...

[lyonhibs]

Why does everyone seem to have an obsession with painting squaddies with the image of being raving loonatics running around with foam at the mouth and just waiting for the chance to toss babies in the air and catch them on their bayonetts? :dunno:

I think you've missed the point.

Your average squaddies, regardless of race, gender, colour, sexual orientation etc etc etc has my utmost respect. They're doing a vital job and I wouldn't swap places with them.

That said, as Liverpool Hibs alludes to above, I'm not talking about your average squaddie (unless you think the average squaddies is liable to have BNP sympathies, which I doubt very much to be the case)

[MyJo]

A radically religious person is IMO just as much danger to society as a radically racist person.

The problem lies in trying to identify these nutters in society, a radically religious person is affiliated to a religion and although the individual may be considered a danger to society you could not put in place rules to say "no catholics" or "no muslims" in certain positions because the vast majority of religious people are normal everyday people with a set of beliefs they follow and cannot be tarred with the same brush as the zealots.

The BNP, by its very nature, is a racist organisation and all members who affiliate themselves with the group are supporting and promoting the prejudiced and racist vitriol the BNP spout so in this situation its a lot easier to say that anyone who is a member of the BNP holds views that are in conflict with the requirements of a role in public office or in a job that requires people to be fair and inclusive of all elements of society such as a police officer.

[sadtom]

:agree: :agree: I'm intrigued. I'd love to imagine what the default mind-set of a BNP sympathetic squaddie on duty in Afghanistan right now might be.

All those Muslims milling around might be a bit like a red rag to a bull.


I'm getting a mental picture of the 'bnp squaddie' shouting "Why dont you all ***** off back to where you came from!" at the locals.
Lets face it, they are not the brightest.

[Killiehibbie]

Is the policeman who is a member of the BNP any worse than the policeman in the association of black police officers? The ABPO play the racism card at every opportunity to further their cause not in an equal way but by the colour of their skin.

[Mibbes Aye]

Is the policeman who is a member of the BNP any worse than the policeman in the association of black police officers? .

:hmmm:


The ABPO play the racism card at every opportunity to further their cause not in an equal way but by the colour of their skin.

Give examples then.

Oh aye, and :hmmm:

[Killiehibbie]

3 cases in the last 2 years taken to Industrial Tribunals of black policemen claiming racial discrimination when not getting promoted but it was proved they were not good enough to get promoted. Cases brought after pressure from ABPO.

[Mibbes Aye]

3 cases in the last 2 years taken to Industrial Tribunals of black policemen claiming racial discrimination when not getting promoted but it was proved they were not good enough to get promoted. Cases brought after pressure from ABPO.

Which force(s)?

[LiverpoolHibs]

3 cases in the last 2 years taken to Industrial Tribunals of black policemen claiming racial discrimination when not getting promoted but it was proved they were not good enough to get promoted. Cases brought after pressure from ABPO.

Exactly what about that would make them as bad or worse than a member of the BNP, assuming that it's even true?

I assume you mean the NBPA rather than 'ABPO'?

[Killiehibbie]

Exactly what about that would make them as bad or worse than a member of the BNP, assuming that it's even true?

I assume you mean the NBPA rather than 'ABPO'?
It doesn't make them any worse it makes them just as bad and none of them fit to hold a job as important as supposedly upholding the law. The Met

[Mibbes Aye]

3 cases in the last 2 years taken to Industrial Tribunals of black policemen claiming racial discrimination when not getting promoted but it was proved they were not good enough to get promoted. Cases brought after pressure from ABPO.


And just for comparison, how many tribunal cases were settled out-of-court by the Met?

You did say the Met, didn't you? A force that was found to be guilty of institutional racism by a public inquiry?

[Killiehibbie]

That's my point they are all as bad as each other. Instead of fighting crime too bizzie fighting each other

[Mibbes Aye]

That's my point they are all as bad as each other. Instead of fighting crime too bizzie fighting each other

Don't see it. You asked whether there was any difference between a police officer who was a BNP member and one who was an NBPA member.

Perhaps you could list (or even look at) their respective aims and objectives and summarise why you think they are similar?

Your second point was allegedly the NBPA had pressurised black officers into going to tribunal and in three cases in the last two years tribunals had ruled against claims of racial discimination.

Perhaps you can give details of the cases to back up your theory, perhaps some proof of the NBPA 'pressure'? And maybe answer the question about how many cases were settled by the police service out of court?

[Sir David Gray]

Whilst I don't subscribe to Killiehibbie's opinion that a police officer being in the NBPA is as bad as a police officer being in the BNP, I can understand some of the point that is being made.

As far as i'm concerned, I don't think groups like the NBPA or the NAMP (National Association of Muslim Police) should exist. In my opinion, they are divisive and highlight differences in people that really should not be highlighted, certainly not in the police force anyway. I think it causes a "them and us" type of situation to arise that is really unhelpful especially with it being within the police force.

I understand the reasons why they have both been set up but again, in my opinion, the police as a whole should be tackling the issues that those two groups are dealing with, whether the police officers are white, black, Christian, Muslim or whatever. Police officers join the police force to serve their community as a whole, not just to protect and represent people of the same ethnic background.

[alex plode]

Killiehibbie;1840966]Is the policeman who is a member of the BNP any worse than the policeman in the association of black police officers?

A very good question - both are discriminatory organisations so no difference imo.

Anyone come up with a definative answer regarding the legality of being a member of a political organisation/party; whilst employed as a police officer ?

[Mibbes Aye]

A very good question - both are discriminatory organisations so no difference imo.

Anyone come up with a definative answer regarding the legality of being a member of a political organisation/party; whilst employed as a police officer ?

Why are both discriminatory organisations? As I invited killiewotsit to do, why don't you lay out the two organisations' aims and objectives and we can compare and contrast? Go on :greengrin

As for your second point, the ultimate recourse is in law. Nobody seems to have challenged ACPO yet. If necessary a challenge could go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. But it never has. Why is that, do you think?

[alex plode]

Why are both discriminatory organisations? As I invited killiewotsit to do, why don't you lay out the two organisations' aims and objectives and we can compare and contrast? Go on :greengrin

As for your second point, the ultimate recourse is in law. Nobody seems to have challenged ACPO yet. If necessary a challenge could go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. But it never has. Why is that, do you think?

They both discriminate based on race. How much clearer can that be ?

My second sentence was a question not a point .
I'd be grateful to hear from anyone who knows the answer.

[Mibbes Aye]

They both discriminate based on race. How much clearer can that be ?

My second sentence was a question not a point .
I'd be grateful to hear from anyone who knows the answer.

Come on alex plode. If they're the same, do what I asked killiewotsit and lay out their aims and objectives alongside each other and everyone can judge whether they are the same.

Your second point was a question, you're right. The nature of the legal system in Scotland and England is such that a great deal of weight is placed on precedent and evolving interpretation, essentially our common law system, as opposed to that where a civil code or constitution is in place.

On that basis, the law regarding whether a serving police officer can be a member of the BNP seems yet to be 'written'. No one seems keen to set the precedent though. As I said, I wonder why?

[alex plode]

Come on alex plode. If they're the same, do what I asked killiewotsit and lay out their aims and objectives alongside each other and everyone can judge whether they are the same.

Your second point was a question, you're right. The nature of the legal system in Scotland and England is such that a great deal of weight is placed on precedent and evolving interpretation, essentially our common law system, as opposed to that where a civil code or constitution is in place.

On that basis, the law regarding whether a serving police officer can be a member of the BNP seems yet to be 'written'. No one seems keen to set the precedent though. As I said, I wonder why?

I didn't say they were the same, I said they were both discriminatory therefore if a serving officer can be dismissed for being a member of a legitamate political party (with discriminatory views) why cant a member of the NBPA be dismissed for being a member of an organisation the ONLY admits members from African, African-Carribean or Asian backgrounds ?


On my second question, I fully understand why the police and the BNP are a dangerous mix; however I also believe you can't be a police officer and a member of the Labour/Conservtive party ????

Is this correct ??

[Mibbes Aye]

I didn't say they were the same, I said they were both discriminatory therefore if a serving officer can be dismissed for being a member of a legitamate political party (with discriminatory views) why cant a member of the NBPA be dismissed for being a member of an organisation the ONLY admits members from African, African-Carribean or Asian backgrounds ?


On my second question, I fully understand why the police and the BNP are a dangerous mix; however I also believe you can't be a police officer and a member of the Labour/Conservtive party ????

Is this correct ??

First point, you've answered your own question. A serving police officer can be dismissed for being a member of the BNP on the grounds that membership is incompatible with a capacity to promote racial equality. Membership of the NBPA shows support for an organisation that has a core objective of promoting equality and fairness.

Surprised that no one (i.e you or the other bloke) want to tackle the fact that a public inquiry found the Met institutionally racist. There isn't really much place to turn after that.

Second question, I've never heard of membership of any other party than the BNP constituting grounds for dismissal for a police officer. I repeat my point - we have a common law system. Why would this not be challenged if it thought unjust? All the way to the European Court of Human Rights?

[alex plode]

A police officer on question time last night said he was prohibited from being a member of ANY political party......does anyone know if this is correct ?

[alex plode]

First point, you've answered your own question. A serving police officer can be dismissed for being a member of the BNP on the grounds that membership is incompatible with a capacity to promote racial equality. Membership of the NBPA shows support for an organisation that has a core objective of promoting equality and fairness.

Surprised that no one (i.e you or the other bloke) want to tackle the fact that a public inquiry found the Met institutionally racist. There isn't really much place to turn after that.

Second question, I've never heard of membership of any other party than the BNP constituting grounds for dismissal for a police officer. I repeat my point - we have a common law system. Why would this not be challenged if it thought unjust? All the way to the European Court of Human Rights?

Membership of NBPA is firstly; determined by skin colour and origin and secondly; associated with encouraging young black officers NOT to join a hostile and racist organisation.

[Mibbes Aye]

Membership of NBPA is firstly; determined by skin colour and origin and secondly; associated with encouraging young black officers NOT to join a hostile and racist organisation.

Is that right? Tell you what, I'll show you mine and you show me yours :wink:

This is from the constitution of the NBPA



ARTICLE 2: AIMS
2.1 The objects of the National Black Police Association are to promote good race
relations and equality of opportunity within the police services of the United Kingdom

and the wider community.




As I've asked, any time you like lay out the aims of the BNP in comparison :dunno: You said there was no difference between them :confused:

I didn't see QT last night. But I've repeatedly made the point about BNP membership not being compatible with serving in the police and no one challenging it. Care to take up the gauntlet?

[Pete]

Is that right? Tell you what, I'll show you mine and you show me yours :wink:

This is from the constitution of the NBPA




As I've asked, any time you like lay out the aims of the BNP in comparison :dunno: You said there was no difference between them :confused:

I didn't see QT last night. But I've repeatedly made the point about BNP membership not being compatible with serving in the police and no one challenging it. Care to take up the gauntlet?

The NBPA are promoting division and racism by their very existence. Membership is determined by skin colour.

I don't think BNP membership is fundamentally compatable with the requirements for being a police officer but isn't it possible to separate your job and your political beliefs?

What about police officers who are members of socialist organisations who believe in the abolition of the monarchy, the re-distribution of wealth from big businesses and anti-isreali action? Are their beliefs compatable with the role considering the organisations and embassies the police have to guard?

[Mibbes Aye]

The NBPA are promoting division and racism by their very existence. Membership is determined by skin colour.

Break it down for me Peter. Explain what the NBPA are doing that is designed to promote the idea that one race is better than another. Because that's what racism is, isn't it?



I don't think BNP membership is fundamentally compatable with the requirements for being a police officer but isn't it possible to separate your job and your political beliefs?

ACPO don't think so and haven't done for a number of years. The Police Federation haven't challenged this, nor have anyone else for that matter, although legislation exists to allow so. Why do you think that is?


What about police officers who are members of socialist organisations who believe in the abolition of the monarchy, the re-distribution of wealth from big businesses and anti-isreali action? Are their beliefs compatable with the role considering the organisations and embassies the police have to guard?

What do you consider are the responsibilities of a police officer? In the UK it's an office rather than a job which means the holders are sworn to uphold the law, protect the public and property and investigate crime. Can you identify a situation where that might be a problem? If so then it's definitely woth considering.

[Pete]

Break it down for me Peter. Explain what the NBPA are doing that is designed to promote the idea that one race is better than another. Because that's what racism is, isn't it?

Not really.

Racism can be a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race. Nobody has mentioned superiorty.

The entry qualifications are based purely on race. To me that is advocating division and promoting seperatism. If I wanted to join what would be the first criteria I would have to fulfill?





ACPO don't think so and haven't done for a number of years. The Police Federation haven't challenged this, nor have anyone else for that matter, although legislation exists to allow so. Why do you think that is?

Are you talking specifically about BNP membership or membership of other political parties?
Perhaps membership of some are easier to deal with than others. Some are obviously incompatable while other leanings....well they're a bit harder to deal with, aren't they.




What do you consider are the responsibilities of a police officer? In the UK it's an office rather than a job which means the holders are sworn to uphold the law, protect the public and property and investigate crime. Can you identify a situation where that might be a problem? If so then it's definitely woth considering.

I know what the responsibilities of a police officer are thank you...having gone through the recruitment process.

Do you think that guarding the US embassy or the HQ of a multinational bank might be a problem given the aims of some socialist or communist organisations?

[Mibbes Aye]

Not really.

Racism can be a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race. Nobody has mentioned superiorty.

The entry qualifications are based purely on race. To me that is advocating division and promoting seperatism. If I wanted to join what would be the first criteria I would have to fulfill?


Peter, it sounds like you are defining racialism, rather than racism which tends to be defined around notions of superiority. Alex plode and killiesomething ducked the question, maybe you can answer? How do you address the fact that a public inquiry found the Met guilty of institutional racism?



Are you talking specifically about BNP membership or membership of other political parties?
Perhaps membership of some are easier to deal with than others. Some are obviously incompatable while other leanings....well they're a bit harder to deal with, aren't they.

I'm talking BNP. If ACPO are guilty of such a travesty of justice by banning serving police officers from being members of the BNP then why hasn't it been challenged fully in the courts? They made their decision years ago.





I know what the responsibilities of a police officer are thank you...having gone through the recruitment process.

Do you think that guarding the US embassy or the HQ of a multinational bank might be a problem given the aims of some socialist or communist organisations?

We don't ask socialist or communist organisations to uphold the law through the swearing of an oath and the assumption of an office. We ask citizens to. Why do you think there hasn't been a policy decision by ACPO to exclude members of, well, take your pick Peter?

[Pete]

Peter, it sounds like you are defining racialism, rather than racism which tends to be defined around notions of superiority. Alex plode and killiesomething ducked the question, maybe you can answer? How do you address the fact that a public inquiry found the Met guilty of institutional racism?

The met were found guilty and dinosaurs attitudes were exposed...and it took Stephen lawrence to find this out. however, the Met is only a small part of the fabric that makes up the whole of the British Isles and the rest of the forces have been given extra legislation and extensive training.
You wouldn't believe the amount of diversity training that goes on nowdays among ALL the forces.




I'm talking BNP. If ACPO are guilty of such a travesty of justice by banning serving police officers from being members of the BNP then why hasn't it been challenged fully in the courts? They made their decision years ago.

It probably can be. The BNP have moved the goalposts so they aren't guilty of any "racial" crimes. If you read their website they've had to remove some racial references and replace them with religious ones. Don't directly quote me on this but they're very carefull to avoid legal action regarding their organistion. we all know they're racist but they've just changed the wording to tie in with the recently passed legislation.







We don't ask socialist or communist organisations to uphold the law through the swearing of an oath and the assumption of an office. We ask citizens to. Why do you think there hasn't been a policy decision by ACPO to exclude members of, well, take your pick Peter?

I don't know. perhaps if ACPO found out that some of it's officers supported such ant-american and anti-israeli causes then it would be different.

maybe we should watch this space if it's one rule for everyone?:dunno:

[alex plode]

Peter, it sounds like you are defining racialism, rather than racism which tends to be defined around notions of superiority. Alex plode and killiesomething ducked the question, maybe you can answer? How do you address the fact that a public inquiry found the Met guilty of institutional racism?

The Met were guilty of institutional racism as charged, how else can you address that question?
My question, and many others is : Why isn't the NBPA guilty of racism ?

And why, in an integrated force in a multiracial city, should any ethnic grouping , led by a member of an ethbic minority (who has risen to the rank of Commander) define itself as separate? And by grievance?

And also..racialism and racism are exactly the same thing.

[alex plode]

Are there no police officers on the board who can clear up whether it's acceptable for a serving officer to be a member of any political party.

[gringojoe]

Imagine the fuss if they started a white police officers association, Aamer Anwar and Shami Chakrabarti would be calling them all racists so how come you are allowed a black association?
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'm getting a mental picture of the 'bnp squaddie' shouting "Why dont you all ***** off back to where you came from!" at the locals.
Lets face it, they are not the brightest.

See what I mean!


Ever been on a night out in Aldershot? :wink:

Only kidding! :duck:

He wasn't talking about your average squaddie, was he...

Well if you walk into the lions den expect to stay for lunch. :wink:



I think you've missed the point.

Your average squaddies, regardless of race, gender, colour, sexual orientation etc etc etc has my utmost respect. They're doing a vital job and I wouldn't swap places with them.

That said, as Liverpool Hibs alludes to above, I'm not talking about your average squaddie (unless you think the average squaddies is liable to have BNP sympathies, which I doubt very much to be the case)

I know you're not talkin about your average squaddie. It just seems that when squaddies are used as an example of something on here, then it's always a bad one. Same applies for plods by the way.:dunno:

[Mibbes Aye]

The met were found guilty and dinosaurs attitudes were exposed...and it took Stephen lawrence to find this out. however, the Met is only a small part of the fabric that makes up the whole of the British Isles and the rest of the forces have been given extra legislation and extensive training.
You wouldn't believe the amount of diversity training that goes on nowdays among ALL the forces.

It probably can be. The BNP have moved the goalposts so they aren't guilty of any "racial" crimes. If you read their website they've had to remove some racial references and replace them with religious ones. Don't directly quote me on this but they're very carefull to avoid legal action regarding their organistion. we all know they're racist but they've just changed the wording to tie in with the recently passed legislation.


I don't know. perhaps if ACPO found out that some of it's officers supported such ant-american and anti-israeli causes then it would be different.

maybe we should watch this space if it's one rule for everyone?:dunno:

Fair points Peter. It certainly has the potential to unravel a bit further :agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

The Met were guilty of institutional racism as charged, how else can you address that question?
My question, and many others is : Why isn't the NBPA guilty of racism ?

And why, in an integrated force in a multiracial city, should any ethnic grouping , led by a member of an ethbic minority (who has risen to the rank of Commander) define itself as separate? And by grievance?

And also..racialism and racism are exactly the same thing.

That's an argument that suits those who would wish to deny things like institutional racism.

For me, racialism is stuff that anyone can do - a white supremacist, a black supremacist, both racialist to my view.

The subtlety around how I would define racism is that it involves racialism but also there is a power element involved.

Which is why a police force that is under-represented with black people at senior level (in fact, at all levels) can be seen as institutionally racist while a pressure group, designed at promoting racial harmony and predominantly aimed at supporting black officers in the said service is not racist.

[alex plode]

That's an argument that suits those who would wish to deny things like institutional racism.

For me, racialism is stuff that anyone can do - a white supremacist, a black supremacist, both racialist to my view.

The subtlety around how I would define racism is that it involves racialism but also there is a power element involved.

Which is why a police force that is under-represented with black people at senior level (in fact, at all levels) can be seen as institutionally racist while a pressure group, designed at promoting racial harmony and predominantly aimed at supporting black officers in the said service is not racist.

For me, it's an argument based on Chambers definition of the terms racialism & racism :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

For me, it's an argument based on Chambers definition of the terms racialism & racism :wink:

Ooh, get you.

Literalist or simplistic definitions suit those who wish to pander to prejudice.

It's the crude argument for, welll...the crude-minded.

I answered your question about why the NBPA wasn't guilty of racism. Do you care to refute that?

[alex plode]

Ooh, get you. :greengrin:greengrin:greengrin:greengrin

Literalist or simplistic definitions suit those who wish to pander to prejudice.

It's the crude argument for, welll...the crude-minded.

I answered your question about why the NBPA wasn't guilty of racism. Do you care to refute that?

Your answer was a fairly decent stab at as to why the NBPA weren't racist and the power (or supremacy) angle I agree, defines whether a discriminatory body is also racist ,however the NBPA ARE being implicitly racist in suggesting that ONLY people of black, Middle eastern, Asian or African origin, care about, or are capable of implementing:-


"promotion of good race relations and equality of opportunity within the police services of the United Kingdom and the wider community" ie Article 2, you posted earlier.


I hope that's not too crude-minded an argument for you :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

Your answer was a fairly decent stab at as to why the NBPA weren't racist and the power (or supremacy) angle I agree, defines whether a discriminatory body is also racist ,however the NBPA ARE being implicitly racist in suggesting that ONLY people of black, Middle eastern, Asian or African origin, care about, or are capable of implementing:-


"promotion of good race relations and equality of opportunity within the police services of the United Kingdom and the wider community" ie Article 2, you posted earlier.



I hope that's not too crude-minded an argument for you :wink:


No it's not too crude-minded. I can't agree there is any implicit suggestion of that sort however.

I wonder what you would make of the St Patrick's Catholic Young Men's Society :devil:

[alex plode]

No it's not too crude-minded. I can't agree there is any implicit suggestion of that sort however.

I wonder what you would make of the St Patrick's Catholic Young Men's Society :devil:

No time whatsoever for divisive groups, whether they're black policeman young catholics or committees of women MPs.

[hibsdaft]

Why isn't the NBPA guilty of racism ?

don't laugh, but you don't actually have to be black to join the NBPA. anyone can join it.

[alex plode]

don't laugh, but you don't actually have to be black to join the NBPA. anyone can join it.

I'm not laughing.
Anyone can be an associate member - full membership is open to those of Afrcan, Asian descent.

[hibsdaft]

I'm not laughing.
Anyone can be an associate member - full membership is open to those of Afrcan, Asian descent.

aye just seen that. part of the problem then imo, it should be banned.

[AndyP]

I'm not laughing.
Anyone can be an associate member - full membership is open to those of Afrcan, Asian descent.

If it is the National Black Police Associaiton that you are talking about then they do not take individuals as members be they black, brown, green or yellow. The membership of the NBPA is made up from the various reginal BPAs and they cannot discriminate between officers so, as an example, if you as a white officer in Northumberland Police strongly believed in their aims and objectives then they (Northumbria BMEPA) would welcome you as a full member.

The link below is to the NBPA constitution, no where in that is there any mention of the colour or make up of the individual BPAs apart from the normal constitutional stipulations

http://www.nbpa.co.uk/images/constitution_ratified_29_10_08.pdf

[alex plode]

If it is the National Black Police Associaiton that you are talking about then they do not take individuals as members be they black, brown, green or yellow. The membership of the NBPA is made up from the various reginal BPAs and they cannot discriminate between officers so, as an example, if you as a white officer in Northumberland Police strongly believed in their aims and objectives then they (Northumbria BMEPA) would welcome you as a full member.

The link below is to the NBPA constitution, no where in that is there any mention of the colour or make up of the individual BPAs apart from the normal constitutional stipulations

http://www.nbpa.co.uk/images/constitution_ratified_29_10_08.pdf

But they do discriminate - that's my point !

To become a FULL member of the Black Police Association - you need to be "black"; ie possess :- "...the common experience and determination of the people of African, African-Caribbean and Asian origin".
Why do you need to be ONLY from this background to promote the aims of the Association and champion good race relations ??

ASSOCIATE membership of the Black Police Association is open to anyone in the force.