NOT because they didn’t have the right to expel someone who’s views were at odds with the party’s values
Tartan_Samurai on
*The court ruled Ali’s removal as “procedurally unfair” because the Green Party identified no code breaches at his dismissal.*
*Judge Stephen Hellman said he could not rule out the possibility that this unfairness had been due Ali’s gender critical beliefs.*
*But the judgement found political parties can remove spokespeople for holding “beliefs that were inconsistent with party policy”, if done through fair procedures.*
Dedsnotdead on
Reading the article it looks like it will be the start of an expensive exercise for the Party.
Fortunately they have £280,000 provisioned in their accounts for legal costs.
Perhaps someone better versed in what’s required to follow process will take charge in the future.
BigSargeEnergy on
> Speaking outside the court, Ali said Green Party leaders are “in total denial about the significance of this landmark case and its implications for party governance”.
The implications being…if you’re going to get rid of someone, do it properly?
I mean, hardly a landmark case considering there’s probably a few thousand employment tribunals that have came to the same conclusion.
Instabanous on
Ye-he-hesss maybe they should go back to focusing on the environment!
childrenofloki on
Discrimination??? Oh no, they don’t like that I’m a cunt, I’m being discriminated against!!!
The fact that the Greens have to pay anything is LUDICROUS. I hate these people. They want to remove trans rights completely and claim to be victims. It’s disgusting.
6 Comments
Because they didn’t follow procedure.
NOT because they didn’t have the right to expel someone who’s views were at odds with the party’s values
*The court ruled Ali’s removal as “procedurally unfair” because the Green Party identified no code breaches at his dismissal.*
*Judge Stephen Hellman said he could not rule out the possibility that this unfairness had been due Ali’s gender critical beliefs.*
*But the judgement found political parties can remove spokespeople for holding “beliefs that were inconsistent with party policy”, if done through fair procedures.*
Reading the article it looks like it will be the start of an expensive exercise for the Party.
Fortunately they have £280,000 provisioned in their accounts for legal costs.
Perhaps someone better versed in what’s required to follow process will take charge in the future.
> Speaking outside the court, Ali said Green Party leaders are “in total denial about the significance of this landmark case and its implications for party governance”.
The implications being…if you’re going to get rid of someone, do it properly?
I mean, hardly a landmark case considering there’s probably a few thousand employment tribunals that have came to the same conclusion.
Ye-he-hesss maybe they should go back to focusing on the environment!
Discrimination??? Oh no, they don’t like that I’m a cunt, I’m being discriminated against!!!
The fact that the Greens have to pay anything is LUDICROUS. I hate these people. They want to remove trans rights completely and claim to be victims. It’s disgusting.