ASLEF votes for protection against far right

[AlexS]

Restrictions on dodgy groups movements can be imposed, but not by bloody ASLEF. Its a matter for law enforcement, not the political wing of a bunch of train drivers.

If anyone attempts to dump a group such as this, if they are causing no trouble or committing no offences on the railway, on my platform, on the basis of an ASLEF political decision they will get no support whatsoever from me, in fact Ill do my best to have them on a charge sooner rather than later.

Leave it to the courts to restrict people's movements.

 

[jon0844]

The sandwich analogy does not parallel. When the EDL travel on the train en masse it is for the specific purpose of committing a criminal act. Buying snap to eat on the way is not. Equally, an EDL member who happens to use the train to commute to work or to go and visit his gran is no problem unless he decides to be a nuisance.

I think it does work just fine here. It doesn't have to be one person getting one sandwich, what about a group going into Tesco to buy some food before going somewhere?

If they're on your train simply to get somewhere, but not breaking any laws, not fare evading, not upgrading to FC without the right ticket, not smoking, doing drugs or harassing other passengers - what's the difference between that and anywhere else they travel/visit on their way?

How could you know they're on their way to commit crime? They could be on the way back, or not being involved with anything illegal at all.

I stick to what I said; if you have concerns, warn others to make a decision on what to do - most likely keep an eye on them, but don't seek to have them chucked off in the most awkward location and give these people the opportunity to go complaining to the media, getting apologies from your bosses and the police, and even compensation for the way they've been treated. That will just give them sympathy and, no doubt, more support.

 

[jb]

The sandwich analogy does not parallel. When the EDL travel on the train en masse it is for the specific purpose of committing a criminal act. Buying snap to eat on the way is not.

It doesn't matter in any case. In terms of law enforcement here, your analysis or interpretation matters not a jot more than that of a general member of the public. They would be told to leave law enforcement to those with the training and authority to exercise it, and so should you be.

 

[Johnuk123]

Restrictions on dodgy groups movements can be imposed, but not by bloody ASLEF. Its a matter for law enforcement, not the political wing of a bunch of train drivers.

If anyone attempts to dump a group such as this, if they are causing no trouble or committing no offences on the railway, on my platform, on the basis of an ASLEF political decision they will get no support whatsoever from me, in fact Ill do my best to have them on a charge sooner rather than later.

Leave it to the courts to restrict people's movements.

That's right, ASLEF should keep it's nose out, this is purely political and has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting union members.

 

[chris89]

The sandwich analogy does not parallel. When the EDL travel on the train en masse it is for the specific purpose of committing a criminal act. Buying snap to eat on the way is not. Equally, an EDL member who happens to use the train to commute to work or to go and visit his gran is no problem unless he decides to be a nuisance.

Yes know your POV but that is a massive generalisation suggesting all members if going to a rally will do something criminal though.

All groups have trouble makers and those for the EDL are the ones who get the most media attention of course.

Just wondering would you do the same thing if you found members for UAF were on the train, by leaving them in a most inconsiderate place?

As said in a previous post. You can not have one rule for the Right side and not for the Left, As some others have stated UAF are just as bad if not worse.

 

[jopsuk]

Answer me this, if drivers were allowed to pick and choose who they transported on the basis of their political ideology where does it end? UNISON will start balloting it's member for the right to refuse treatment to EDL members next... Don't get me wrong I dispise everything the EDL stands for, but as long as a group of individuals are well behaved during the journey it is not reason enough to refuse them travel based on their personal views. We are professionals doing a job and should'nt let our judgement clouded by our personal opinions, on the other hand if they are disruptive you should give the BTP a bell on 999 and have it swiftly dealt with. While they are certainly the most high profile group currently I am sure they are not the only 'extremist' group to use the train as a method of travel.

Aye. I really dislike the EDL, and despair at where it is coming from, but this move by ASLEF can only make things worse. I doubt there will be any real action, but I can see things going VERY badly should a driver refuse to take a train forward on this basis. I'd rather avoid upsetting a bunch of knuckle dragging beered-up louts.

 

[Oswyntail]

I could imagine that some ASLEF members are also EDL members. Would they refuse to let themselves drive?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am just waiting for the first time during a church service when it is announced...

The reading today is taken from the Gospel accordng to ASLEF...

 

[AnonymousUser1]

This is dangerous, if they start refusing travel to one group how long will it be before they refuse travel to another, and another, and another?

this is the same imature politics as the 'no platform' types in the Student;s Union

it;s the self righteous up their own arse 'right on' ness of the left ...

 

[455driver]

I personally don't agree with everything the EDL spouts about

I am surprised because that makes it sound like you do agree with some of the things they spout!

There are extremists in a groups of people, but unless you can prove they are going to cause trouble there isnt much you can do, remember its not a question of what you know its only a question of what you can prove!

 

[O L Leigh]

Hang on. Is there some other EDL that we're discussing...? I had assumed that we were talking about the English Defence League. Somehow I get the feeling from the spirited defence that I'm seeing being mounted on their behalf I'm beginning to wonder if I've got it wrong.

For those in doubt over the legality of the EDL's activities, perhaps I should remind you that threatening behaviour in public and using racially abusive language are public order offences that the Police will take action over. Therefore turning up in large groups to noisily intimade and racially abuse members of the public, as the EDL are wont to do, is an illegal activity.

If the EDL really were a legitimate protest group it is unlikely that they would engage in such direct action. Granted they are not the only ones to have resorted to this sort of tactic, but all who did have received the approbation of the law no matter how noble their causes, from CND to Greenpeace to the Greenham Common protest camps to the travellers at Dale Farm.

At the risk of laying it on a bit thick (although I'm beginning to think that I should be using shorter and shorter words and, just maybe, writing this in crayon), I would like to remind you of the words of Thomas Paine. "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

I will say yet again that I am not politically naive, so please can we all stop making that accusation. I don't doubt that there is a political angle to this statement and have already said so more than once. But at what point does the general public make it clear to those responsible for law enforcement that we want this problem to be tackled. Racism in football was stamped out due to popular support and is now considered totally unacceptable. The same can be said for football hooliganism. Why shouldn't ASLEF oppose the EDL, especially as they work so hard within the industry to stamp out discrimination on grounds of gender, race, culture or sexual orientation (the politics of the Communist left...?).

Or maybe they really are lovable, well-behaved but sadly misguided rogues that deserve the benefit of the doubt, as they appear to be painted in this thread. Can ASLEF really enforce a travel ban...? I think I answered that in my first post. Does it undermine or devalue the statement in opposition? Again I think I have already covered this in sufficient detail, along with other things besides.

And yes, I do oppose the UAF and other extremist groups as much as I oppose the EDL. We live in a multi-cultural society and we need to be able to rub along as best as we can together while respecting each others differences. But this thread happens to be about the EDL as this is the group that ASLEF has made a subject of the statement currently under discussion, so any bias that may appear in my posts is entirely incidental.

O L Leigh

 

[jb]

Hang on. Is there some other EDL that we're discussing...? I had assumed that we were talking about the English Defence League. Somehow I get the feeling from the spirited defence that I'm seeing being mounted on their behalf I'm beginning to wonder if I've got it wrong.

Strawman is the last resort. No-one here (I hope) supports the EDL and you know it.

If the EDL really were a legitimate protest group it is unlikely that they would engage in such direct action. Granted they are not the only ones to have resorted to this sort of tactic, but all who did have received the approbation of the law no matter how noble their causes, from CND to Greenpeace to the Greenham Common protest camps to the travellers at Dale Farm.

Few here would bat an eyelid if you and/or ASLEF campaigned for the EDL to be proscribed. Until that happens all this stuff about their legitimacy is neither here nor there.

At the risk of laying it on a bit thick (although I'm beginning to think that I should be using shorter and shorter words and, just maybe, writing this in crayon), I would like to remind you of the words of Thomas Paine. "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

This is not the Meddlers' Charter you seem to think it is.

I will say yet again that I am not politically naive, so please can we all stop making that accusation. I don't doubt that there is a political angle to this statement and have already said so more than once. But at what point does the general public make it clear to those responsible for law enforcement that we want this problem to be tackled.

OK, so if you're now saying that ASLEF are members of the public in this respect, then you'll get no argument from me. Just drop the "putting pressure" nonsense, drive your train, and you're there.

 

[O L Leigh]

Strawman is the last resort. No-one here (I hope) supports the EDL and you know it.

I share your hope. However, I was beginning to wonder whether or not we might be talking about the East Dorset Lacemakers, so some other such harmless group.

Few here would bat an eyelid if you and/or ASLEF campaigned for the EDL to be proscribed. Until that happens all this stuff about their legitimacy is neither here nor there.

I disagree.

The organisation itself may not have been proscribed, but that does not mean that their activities are acceptable. I really can't seem to say it enough times and will continue to do so until the point is conceded, because it really is key. The aims of the EDL are odious, but that is their own business. The methods of the EDL put them on the wrong end of the law. Other extremist organisations have been proscribed for just the same reasons and I feel it is just a matter of time before the EDL joins the list.

This is not the Meddlers' Charter you seem to think it is.

I understand and am only quoting Paine to try and underline the point that society has a role in policing itself. That is not the same thing as saying that we should meddle or become vigilantes, but we can and do have the opportunity and ability to influence and shape the society we live in. You may wish to dismiss this out of hand, but unfortunately you ignore a lot of things that have changed as a result of public pressure brought to bear on policymakers and authorities.

OK, so if you're now saying that ASLEF are members of the public in this respect, then you'll get no argument from me. Just drop the "putting pressure" nonsense, drive your train, and you're there.

ASLEF represents a certain section of the public and is speaking on their behalf. Not all members will care or necessarily agree, but I do. It is consistent with ASLEF's policies and other political activities.

You and others may not wish to take part in any social engagement, but that does not mean that I and others, and, in this case ASLEF, cannot. Neither is it wrong for them to do so. ASLEF have broken no law and are perfectly entitled to issue statements on any matter that relates to their members in particular, the rail industry in general and, yes, society as a whole. Therefore any criticism of ASLEF for issuing this statement is unwarranted.

O L Leigh

 

[The Barlow Boy]

This immature political posturing by a union might have more credence if it applied equally to the loony left - who by infiltrating unions have caused far far more damage to Britain in the past - as well as to the loony right who are basically a bunch of brainless thugs.

 

[theageofthetra]

ASLEF & other rail unions have done great work over the years ensuring the safety of their members and the travelling public & should be commended. This kind of Marxist political posturing though is embarrassing and it being treated with contempt on many social networking sites. They should take a look at the mood sweeping the UK & London in particular and realise the damage this decision has done to its reputation & ultimately its members to whom they are paid to represent.

 

[O L Leigh]

Oh, I get it now. We all deplore the EDL and it's fine to state our opposition, as long as it's not a trades union doing the opposing.

O L Leigh

 

[The Barlow Boy]

Oh, I get it now. We all deplore the EDL and it's fine to state our opposition, as long as it's not a trades union doing the opposing.

O L Leigh

No, you're (deliberately I suspect) missing the point. It's not for a union to decide who and who cannot travel on a train because they have political beliefs that the union disagrees with. That's the first stage of dictatorship. What makes this entirely disingenuous is the fact that a union wants to ban the far right whilst allowing the far left. Both sides are as abhorrent as the other.

 

[O L Leigh]

No I haven't missed your point. Go back and read it all again.

O L Leigh

 

[RPI]

I am surprised because that makes it sound like you do agree with some of the things they spout!

I do agree with them that EXTREMIST islamists have no place in this Country.

 

[asylumxl]

I do agree with them that EXTREMIST islamists have no place in this Country.

What about extremists of any other religion?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What about extremists of any other religion?

....or extremists of any secular organisation.

 

[O L Leigh]

But trying to block people from actually traveling solely because you disagree with their views is wrong. The first stage of fascism, rather ironically.
The railways are a public service which in a free society, must be open to all.

If youre going to ban the EDL, then maybe ASLEF members should be banned from trains too, for being a far left organisation. Where would it all end?

Getting really bored of having to say the same things over and over, so forgive me doing this.

There are lot of threads to this topic that are not necessarily limited to refusing to carry a troublesome group of people which, I agree, will be hard to enforce without the cooperation of other groups such as Police.

There is already a precedent. A legal one.

Members of football hooligan "firms" who travel to games with the express purpose of fighting with opposing fans have their travel rights restricted and are often barred from travelling to matches entirely.

I would like to raise yet again the precedent of football hooligan "firms". Part of the way that Police deal with them is to restrict their travel and, frankly, I have no problem whatsoever if the state decides to extend it's powers to control the movements of the EDL too.

I suggest you take this matter up with the Government, as ASLEF were not behind that one. Restriction of civil liberties...? Perhaps. However, the example stands.

You are mixing up political opposition with political oppression. As I said before, I don't really care what a person thinks or believes. That is their own business. What I do object to is a group of masked thugs travelling into my neighbourhood from far and wide for the specific purpose of intimidating the residents and stirring up hate and resentment, whether that be the EDL, Islamic Jihadists or the Boy Scouts.

O L Leigh

 

[Oswyntail]

I do agree with them that EXTREMIST islamists have no place in this Country.

What about extremists of any other religion?

Or no religion?
Define "Extremist", and do so in a way that does not have unwanted consequences. IMHO, the motivation should be irrelevant in the definition. What we have is a problem with murderous thugs, with a set type of target, and a set of methods. These thugs tend to be British. Again IMHO, there should be two strands to dealing with them: the "hard" approach of preventative policing; and the "soft" approach of trying to discover, and prevent, why these young British citizens are open to the poisonous message from groups such as EDL, UAF, and, yes, preachers. Treating it as a problem to be solved by getting rid of those spreading the poison is doomed to failure.

 

[O L Leigh]

Blimey!! And we're all worrying about ASLEF making statements...? Seems like a lot of closets being opened at the moment.

O L Leigh

 

[theageofthetra]

I presume that ASLEF will be falling over themselves to protect their LGBT members from those groups who are disproportionatly involved in the increase in homophobic abuse in the last few years? This is of course where Marxists get themselves tied up in knots. ASLEF have made a huge mistake which has clearly divided those who pay their wages. Look after the interests of ALL of your members or risk becoming irrelevant.

 

[brianthegiant]

I remember not long ago sitting in a waiting room (aka bus shelter) at Leeds. There were a group of old school skinheads (bomber jackets, dm boots, checked shirts), some of them were standing. at some point an asian lass got up and walked out. I heard one of them mutter to the others - don't want to sit there it's dirty. in hindsight the insinuation was quite clear, but at the time I suppose I didn't have conviction to to call BTP & like most people there, I wasn't going to say anything for fear of kicking off a fight. The skinhead crowd had aggression written all over them, I think they punched each other a few times, half jokingly. The whole atmosphere was pretty tense, more or less half skinheads and half asian /black people.
I know that not all skinheads are racist, some very firmly non-racist, but I really don't think that was the case here.

I've travelled alongside a lot of devout looking muslims and quite a few die hard lefties too, but I don't think I ever noticed this kind of outwardly aggressive, intimidating persona.

I think democracy and freedom of speech is of utmost importance, but it isn't easy, it raises these big challenges of the right of one person to have freedom of speech versus the right of another person to go about their life without feeling intimidated or harrassed. Clearly from this discussion there is no easy straightforward answer, otherwise we probably wouldn't be having this lengthy discussion.

I fundamentally disagree with pre-emptively arresting people or interrupting their movements based on a suspicion that they might do something. But, I would fully support rail staff who assist the police with intelligence about movements of EDL or other violent groups, so that the police can act promptly if there is criminality or anti-social behaviour.

 

[O L Leigh]

I presume that ASLEF will be falling over themselves to protect their LGBT members from those groups who are disproportionatly involved in the increase in homophobic abuse in the last few years? This is of course where Marxists get themselves tied up in knots. ASLEF have made a huge mistake which has clearly divided those who pay their wages. Look after the interests of ALL of your members or risk becoming irrelevant.

Do you know that ASLEF are failing their LGBT members in some way, or are you speculating?

Oh, and please. Will anyone using the term "Marxist" please go away and look it up first so that they know precisely what it means. We were all quick to pick up Godwin's Law being proven earlier in this thread, but the frequency with which parallels with Marxism are being (incorrectly) drawn might suggest some sort of variation along the theme.

O L Leigh

 

[DarloRich]

I presume that ASLEF will be falling over themselves to protect their LGBT members from those groups who are disproportionatly involved in the increase in homophobic abuse in the last few years? This is of course where Marxists get themselves tied up in knots. ASLEF have made a huge mistake which has clearly divided those who pay their wages. Look after the interests of ALL of your members or risk becoming irrelevant.

I am sure you are aware of the good work done by unions of all types in relation in inclusivity, diversity, equality and in fighting prejudice of all types.

There also seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding and misuse of the word "Marxist". Anyway since when should facts prevent a good old wibbling rant?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ASLEF & other rail unions have done great work over the years ensuring the safety of their members and the travelling public & should be commended. This kind of Marxist political posturing though is embarrassing and it being treated with contempt on many social networking sites. They should take a look at the mood sweeping the UK & London in particular and realise the damage this decision has done to its reputation & ultimately its members to whom they are paid to represent.

Can we just be clear - Are you suggesting that because of a heinous murder in London we should encourage or support the ideology of the EDL? (my bold added for emphasis)

 

[theageofthetra]

Why would any sane person suggest supporting a repulsive false flag organisation such as the EDL? I am merely pointing out that perceived "loony left" rulings like this (however well meaning) are being picked up upon by an angry population & retweeted/blogged etc etc outside the rail world and are undermining all the good work done in quiet by many behind the scenes to ensure that OUR railway is the best that it can be. Sadly I can see by some previous comments that this thread is gradually turning into name calling so thats the end of my involvement in it. Goodnight & Good Luck.

 

[O L Leigh]

I suppose I should have read the OP's links in greater detail first before commenting on his slightly skewed questions, as it would have nipped all this speculation and approbation in the bud. That is my fault for which I apologise but, in my own defence, it appears that no-one else has bothered to do so either. We all saw a tasty bandwagon passing by and none of us could resist jumping aboard, mostly because it serves a lot of political prejudices held on both sides.

Firstly, ASLEF have not called for, nor imposed, any travel ban on EDL members. Any statement to this effect is factually incorrect in all respects. ASLEF do not mention the EDL by name but refers instead to "fascist and racist groups". In addition, ASLEF's concern is that black and ethnic minority members may be subjected to risk as a result of transporting these unnamed groups and is seeking "agreements with the train companies to accommodate these drivers when demonstrations take place", not a ban on EDL members travelling on train services. This much was said in the quote given in full and taken from the ASLEF webpage linked to by the OP.

All references to ASLEF voting to ban EDL members from travelling on train services seem to stem from the OP's second link to a Twitter account. However, I can find no corroborating evidence for this claim as all links on a perfunctory internet search seem to lead ultimately back to the same source. Clearly this individual is mistaken, as was the OP for being suckered into believing this to have been the case. In all honesty, anything of this importance would almost certainly have been explicitly stated by ASLEF themselves.

As I said above, I apologise for having missed these salient details and for fanning the flames on this thread. Having done so, I would expect those others most active in this thread to add their own apologies for the slanders that they have also committed. I have not enjoyed this thread one little bit, even though I feel that the topics it touches upon are important, both for this community and for society as a whole. It just goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

Anyone wishing to PM me about this, I would welcome your messages.

I am merely pointing out that perceived "loony left" rulings like this (however well meaning) are being picked up upon by an angry population & retweeted/blogged etc etc outside the rail world and are undermining all the good work done in quiet by many behind the scenes to ensure that OUR railway is the best that it can be.

It's such a shame that all these retweets and blogs are repeating the lie. Why the originator of this idea couldn't have checked (or at least corrected) their facts is a mystery to me.

O L Leigh