Double Standards?

[Incognito]

WHS - But I suppose this doesn't support the OP conspiracy theory.

Yes, conspiracy theory you're right. I haven't even started on the fact that taxpayers are funding the blog.

Granted it is a community blog, but have a read of the individuals history, maybe just the conspiracist in me that notices the timestamps of the guys replies to his comments. But hey, there's sure to be a perfectly good excuse for why they're posted during normal working hours.

[DSW]

Silly bitch.

which one?

sorry couldn't resist!

[Beefy198]

Aaah, here we go, the story has moved on a bit since I originally read up on it:

So first the reports were that she had been sacked for posting on theyworkforyou, citing concerns personal info being handed over, they refuted it, and then the owner found out the truth.

So in case you were wondering, it looks like she was sacked for sending Hazel Blears a snotty email from her WORK EMAIL ADDRESS.

Silly bitch.

[Cyberman]

No double standards at all. Normal PC standards prevail.

[Beefy198]

Was she actually sacked for that though?

When that story originally broke they said she posted it on theyworkforyou.com, however it turned out no such thing happened. Will find a link.

[Clippy]

She used company equipment, he did not.

WHS - But I suppose this doesn't support the OP conspiracy theory.

The bit I hate is that he made the comments and got suspended for 6 months.. on full pay. As for company equipment I agree that it is a big distinction, but then why was he suspended?

Probably so thy could check what he did against all relevant procedures, guidelines etc.
As it is the public sector, a task which could have been completed in a few weeks took 6 months.

[thunderlizard]

She used company equipment, he did not.

That's the one. Using civil service resources for political purposes. Always keep the small rules.

[DSW]

The bit I hate is that he made the comments and got suspended for 6 months.. on full pay. As for company equipment I agree that it is a big distinction, but then why was he suspended?

Probably being daft, but after making comments like that wouldn't he find it a bit difficult to keep his security clearance? I assume they require that for looking after the money, although they did let Gordon get his hands on it

I don't see why his religious groups should come into (although I'm sure many a prejudiced by it). Its his views and opinions that don't fit in, also would it be any different if he was working in the MOD?

[minestrone]

She used company equipment, he did not.

[Incognito]

Why don't you just come out and refer to this bit?


You know you want to.

Could be one of a number of reasons, maybe it's one of these:

1. He is a trustee of the East London Mosque & London Muslim Centre
2. He chairs the Muslim Council of Britain’s membership committee
3. Azad Ali is a National Council Member of Liberty

[HairyArsedBloke]

Hmm, I wonder, why the double standards?

Why don't you just come out and refer to this bit?

.... president of the Civil Service Islamic Society ....

You know you want to.

[Incognito]

So, a civil servant gets sacked for e-mailing an MP and calling her a thief and a liar. Bringing the department into disrepute, etc.

Then this chap blogs on the internet about killing British troops, supporting Hamas and supporting the idea that Jewish children are legitimate targets. Makes it quite clear he's a civil servant. Bringing the department into disrepute you might say? Well no, apparently not because he's back at work now.

Hmm, I wonder, why the double standards?