AussieDodger wrote: zepfan wrote:
What if I'm republican but the guy I like better is a democrat?
Hilarious how Americans think like this about politics
Newsflash: The political parties AREN'T sporting teams (you don't "win" if your party gets in), and politicians are actually sleazy, double-talking pieces of beep. You are NOT "a republican" or "a democrat", if you call yourself that it actually means (to the rest of the world) that you're an automatic-voting mindless sheep. You're welcome America.
(Prepares for mod-edit and/or card)
Woot! An on-topic response.
Here is the story of a guy named Tony Farrell as told by one Professor Rory Ridley Duff of Sheffield Hallam University who has launched a petition
to get him reinstated.
"In July 2010, Tony Farrell, the Principal Intelligence Analyst of South Yorkshire Police reviewed available evidence for his annual threat assessment against the people of South Yorkshire, England. He came to the conclusion that it was less likely that the events of 9/11 and 7/7 were al-Qaeda terrorist attacks than ‘false flag’ terrorist operations carried out by the intelligence services of western governments. As the alleged al-Qaeda attack in London was thought to have been planned in Yorkshire, and his annual threat assessment took into account the local threat from terrorism to the people of South Yorkshire, he reported his concerns to senior officers. He asked for time to produce a new assessment that included the threat from intelligence services as well as al-Qaeda.
His commitment to professional standards at South Yorkshire Police that he must ‘not knowingly make any false, misleading or inaccurate written statements’ was reinforced by a religious belief that he ‘must not bear false witness’. When senior police officers would not give him additional time to revise his threat assessment, he refused to sign off the annual threat assessment on the basis that it would be misleading.
Senior police officers suspended, and later dismissed, Tony Farrell from his job on the grounds of ‘incompatible beliefs’. At the internal appeal hearing by South Yorkshire Police, the chair stated: ‘Your views are very sincere and you may be right but it is, I’m afraid, incompatible at the moment with where we are’ (Mr Hiller, Director of Finance, South Yorkshire Police, 2nd September 2010). Later, at his appeal on 6th October 2010, and again at the Employment Tribunal in September 2011, Mr Littlejoy (chair of the appeal panel) claimed that Tony Farrell’s views were ‘conspiracy theories invented without any evidence’ and that they were ‘outlandish’.
On the 9th September 2011, the Sheffield Employment Tribunal Service upheld the decision of South Yorkshire Police to dismiss Tony for ‘incompatible beliefs’ even though it surfaced in evidence that no police officer, no intelligence analyst, no police manager, and nobody on the appeal panel had checked the evidence that led Tony Farrell to revise his threat assessment. The Employment Tribunal panel refused to accept written works from Professor Ray Griffin and Dr Rory Ridley-Duff to rebut Mr Littlejoy’s claims that Tony Farrell’s ‘outlandish’ views had no evidence base.
This petition invites citizens, residents, workers and visitors to the UK to make an official complaint against the police service and employment tribunal service on the basis that this employment tribunal decision will affect them. At the employment tribunal , the Head of HR at South Yorkshire Police (Stephanie Barker) answered the question “are you saying that any person holding those views in South Yorkshire Police would not be able to work for them?”. She stated “Yes, that is the case.” (Statement based on the verbatim notes taken by a researcher). Therefore, not only is it the official policy of South Yorkshire Police to dismiss any person who questions the government account of the terrorist threat, the Employment Tribunal Service supports their decision to dismiss people on these grounds. In effect, the police service have a legally sanctioned right to dismiss staff and officers who question the truthfulness of the government’s account of the events of 7/7 or 9/11.
As a result, any person involved in legal proceedings on account of their beliefs on 7/7 and 9/11 cannot expect an independent, impartial investigation by the police service in either civil or criminal cases. All police staff who might be inclined to conduct impartial investigations into matters related to 7/7 or 9/11 will now fear dismissal. No member of the public who surfaces evidence of criminal activity related to 7/7 or 9/11 will be able to go to the police for an independent investigation because any line of enquiry that questions the official account will be immediately shut down.
Furthermore, the tribunal decision allows any employer to dismiss staff who question the government version of events related to 7/7 and 9/11 through their work on the basis that such beliefs are ‘incompatible’ with those of their employer. All working people in the United Kingdom are now at risk if they discuss government involvement in the events of 7/7 or 9/11 within the context of their work. No employee can expect fair treatment from the Employment Tribunal Service if their employer claims that questioning 7/7 and 9/11 is ‘incompatible’ with their work.
The signatories to this petition believe there can be no place in the Police Service or Employment Tribunal Service for people who reach conclusions in their professional work without properly considering the quality and quantity of evidence available, or who show contempt for employees – like Tony Farrell - whose work depends on the integrity of their commitment to establishing the truth.