Where do you want to put that hose

[xoggoth]

Do we "all know" that vista? Despite the general assumption some make that minorities get away with everything, I don't personally recall reading about any Muslim fire/police/ambulance men refusing to attend for duty at a Christian event and I'm sure there must be some. I could be wrong but if they did I would make the same comment. They should do the job they are being paid to do.

[oraclesmith]

At the risk of carrying this thread on longer than needs be.....

I suggest the chief consideration in the minds of the senior officers who decided to exact a formal penalty on these fire officers was discipline. It would be a disciplinary matter of the highest degree (ie. gross misconduct) to wilfully disobey the reasonable orders or instructions of a senior officer.

In public service, I have never know anyone who would confront their line manager or senior officer and simply refuse point-blank to comply with a direct instruction. In fact I once had to send a member of staff on diversity counselling/training for disciplinary reasons but I did not see it as 'punishment' - instead it was a reasonable way to ensure that the individual concerned had no doubts over their expected conduct in these matters. They saw it as unfair 'punishment', but then they also thought they were innocent.

The disciplining officers in this circumstance would have a difficult decision to make. Consider :-

- The senior officer who the fire officers refused to obey would probably have HAD to report the incident to their manager, unless they considered it to be very trivial. He/she wouldn't have had much leaway to sort it out on a low key basis.

- The diversity initiative itself would be at a reasonably high profile within the Brigade. eg. Strathclyde managers have had recent training in diversity and there had been systematic diversity reviews at local stations.

- Giving the fire officers concerned an easy let off would set a precedent and cause all manner of subsequent problems. They would be concerned that, for example, fire officers of particular religions/gender/race/sexual orientation/age/dietary habits etc would try to opt out of attending certain incidents or refuse to be on watch with certain officers or performing certain duties. It would also send a message to crews that disobeying senior officers' direct orders is sometimes allowed if you can put up a half decent argument.

- The proper penalty for disobeying a reasonable order of a senior officer would be immediate dismissal for gross misconduct. However, the disciplining officers probably had considerable sympathy with the fire officers concerns and almost certainly did not want to lose nine fully trained officers in one go. They also would have had concerns over union involvement. Some elements of the FBU are particularly reactionary.

- The crux of their decision would (probably) have been whether the original order could be considered 'reasonable'. It is clear that it SHOULD be according to their recent diversity policy, however there may have been some doubt over whether these officers had fully understood the policy and were seen to be working with it. This doubt would have lead to the disciplining officers taking a middle way and handing out minor penalties and training but with the fire officers concerned retaining their jobs. The training would be a concession to the doubt about diversity awareness and to guard against a second occurrence with the same officers.

- The issue with the more senior officer of the group was (I suggest) also discipline but of a rather more serious kind. Here was someone who not only disobeyed orders on his own account but also seemed to represent/umbrella more junior officers who had the same issue. Here was someone who is normally trusted to lead others and enforce Brigade policy and discipline and now is at odds with it. Because there is a higher expectation of discipline, leadership and professional conduct on this officer, they got a more severe penalty.

If you were one of the disciplining officers in this case, would you do anything different ?

[Diestl]

I agree they should be sacked, what if they attended a gay night club on fire, would they refuse to help and let the all the gays fry? If I was a firefighter and being straight I would have no problem going to the march, did they think they were going to be gang raped by 1000 gays?

[Paddy]

I agree they should be sacked, what if they attended a gay night club on fire, would they refuse to help and let the all the gays fry? If I was a firefighter and being straight I would have no problem going to the march, did they think they were going to be gang raped by 1000 gays?

The firemen openly stated on the news that they would never refuse to attend a fire regardless of the if it involved gays or not. The firemen did hand out leaflets to the gays but they refused to take part in the march. If this sort of thing happened in China and the firemen were ordered to be re-educated there would be an out cry in the media. DOUBLE STANADARS as usual.