Reply to: Where do you want to put that hose

[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.

[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?

[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 ?

[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.

[DaveB]

There was a twenty minute discussion on Radio four with the firemen. You can listen again on the web-site. The firemen stated several times that they were ordered to go on the march. IE take part

At no point were they ordered to take part. They were ordered to "go on the march" ie attend the march in order to carry out their duties in terms of handing out information etc. They were not ordered to actually take part in the march itself.

[oraclesmith]

[weemster]

Anyone who spends their friday evening (or saturday morning) on a web forum is beyond help.

[TheScarletPimp]

^ Who is this retard ?

Board Game Geek, huh? Something tells me that you'd find Snakes 'n' Ladders an intellectual challenge. I suspect that you've spent way too much time "shaking your dice". I'll bet the Dice Shaker's Elbow is a bitch.

TSP

[Board Game Geek]

^ Who is this retard ?

[TheScarletPimp]

If there was a "Straight & Proud" march to demonstrate hetrosexual solidarity and gay firemen were compelled to attend, would there be an uproar?

Quite right, Troll.

oraclesmith, I wonder how the Buftie Boys would appreciate a little friendly heterosexual banter and the "Straight & Proud" march too.

I'd have thought that the firemen have had their Human Rights breached in some form. Still, it sure beats having something else breached I suppose.

Supposing the 9 firemen looked like a troupe of Chippendales. There could have been a shocking breach of the peace too: 9 firemen drilled by the 25th Highland Light Loafers Gay Pride Brigade. Or something.

TSP

[oraclesmith]

Do I have to repeat myself ? According to all the reliable news reports, their duties on the day were to staff a fire safety booth or stall giving out leaflets to passers-by, not actually prance among the queer folk or pretend to support the marchers.

Fire safety education is one of their statutory duties they cannot pick and choose who they should give advice to, regardless of the circumstances. The Strathclyde brigade has an established diversity policy. In addition, all brigade managers have already attended said diversity training.

Let's cut all the posturing eh ? Pork festivals indeed.

I bet the real reason these lads didn't want to turn up at the gay parade was the fear of someone making a pass at them or maybe their mates finding out. Well so what ? Uniformed women have to put with all sorts of remarks from members of the public (blokes) and they have to deal with it in a professional manner. I bet if you put the same firefighters in a stand at a womens health and beauty show, they'd be lapping up the so-called 'sexual abuse'. So come on, get real.

[Paddy]

Instructed to take part in the parade itself ?

Not according to the BBC or the Guardian or the Scotsman or the Herald or the Times etc.

They all seem to report that the firemen were doing what they normally do at these functions which presumably is to turn up with a pump and hang around giving out leaflets like they do at fetes and fairs all across Britain.

"Some of the officers involved argued at the time of the gay march that it would be embarrassing for them to turn up in uniform to the event, while others claimed it would contradict their moral beliefs."

" One of the firefighters is reported as saying: "We are straight and turning up in our uniforms would have been an embarrassment." "

Embarrassing ? FFS what are they afraid of ?

There was a twenty minute discussion on Radio four with the firemen. You can listen again on the web-site. The firemen stated several times that they were ordered to go on the march. IE take part

[vista]

Oh Yes

You won't get much sense from an archbishop.

Legitimate concerns? If they had turned up and were taunted it would be reasonable to leave, being paid does not mean you have to take abuse. However that is not what happened. Being offended by legal protest is no excuse either. If you are not prepared to serve all of the public impartially then don't go into a public service.

If this applied to all those in public service you may have a point however we all know it doesn't so all your 'view' does is encourage double standards and unfairness.

[vista]

Isn't it funny

It would appear that some are more equal than others.

Gay's, muslims <insert your favourite minority here> have the right to do their stuff yet the rest of us it would appear do not have any rights at all. Would we insist that all Muslim firefighters must attend a pork festival or that gay officers attend an extreme right-wing religious festival.

Can you imagine the sexual abuse a bunch of hetrosexual firefighters in full-uniform would get on a 'gay pride' march?

If I were them I'd have objected and when the thought-police-nazis kicked off I'd have gone along and then sued scotland for willfully putting me in harms-way.

Let the minorities have their day and do their stuff its only fair right and proper but afford the rest of us the same rights.

[Troll]

Instructed to take part in the parade itself ?

Not according to the BBC or the Guardian or the Scotsman or the Herald or the Times etc.

They all seem to report that the firemen were doing what they normally do at these functions which presumably is to turn up with a pump and hang around giving out leaflets like they do at fetes and fairs all across Britain.

"Some of the officers involved argued at the time of the gay march that it would be embarrassing for them to turn up in uniform to the event, while others claimed it would contradict their moral beliefs."

" One of the firefighters is reported as saying: "We are straight and turning up in our uniforms would have been an embarrassment." "

Embarrassing ? FFS what are they afraid of ?

If there was a "Straight & Proud" march to demonstrate hetrosexual solidarity and gay firemen were compelled to attend, would there be an uproar?