ASLEF votes for protection against far right

[Silv1983]

Fighting Prejudice with Prejudice! Who thought that one up....

A lot of EDL are fascist, racist, islamophobic etc - but some of them are just simple, weak, misguided and easily led without 'racist' views or tendancies for violence. They genuinely believe they're doing the country a service and only voice contempt for those publicised in the media who are responsible for grooming gangs and extremist views etc.

Unfortunately for the religious group and nationality concerned in such reports it can cause stereotyping; but even by EDL standards they're not daft enough to go 'a lynching' random workers and citizens. Unless anyone can educate me otherwise (I read the news a lot but might miss some articles).

Existing laws should be plentiful. ASLEF should perhaps threaten to withdraw services if sufficient BTP aren't paid to accompany them (which I believe they do a lot anyway).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I find the intolerance of intolerance rather ironic. I'm glad the UAF have been mentioned. They're as bad as anyone when it comes to the 'rent a mob' genre.

In a previous life I policed the EDL/UAF demonstration in Bolton and I can say that the UAF were far worse. A right mish mash of intolerable human beings!

 

[jon0844]

If you knew a load of EDL members had boarded a train, you might tell control so they can be aware of it - and perhaps alert the police to keep an eye on them. It's quite possible that police intelligence might have missed their movement and aren't aware of pending trouble.

I don't think there's any justification to have them removed from the train, unless they have also been seen breaking any laws, don't have tickets (good luck to that RPI!) or whatever.

I think for the most part, letting these idiots prove themselves to be idiots is a far more effective way of keeping them under control than turning them into martyrs or oppressed heroes.

 

[AlexS]

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.

But there is more to this. As has already been stated, ASLEF, like other unions, is a political entity. This is as much a statement of political opposition as it is a statement of intent to withhold the right to travel. The movements of the EDL have become so associated with the railways that there might be a connection in the minds of the public with the EDL and the railways and an assumption of tacit support from within the industry. This statement is a way of one of the largest group of railway workers distancing themselves from the activities of the EDL.

Personally I support it. I will not be tracking the movements of the EDL from one place to the next, but if I become aware of a group of their members on my train I shall be exerting pressure on my controller to get them met by Police and ejected at the first (and, hopefully, least convenient) opportunity.

O L Leigh

While I appreciate your sentiments, I do hope and assume you'd have the courtesy to consult with your guard before getting control involved in terms of removing passengers for political reasons! The police are unlikely to be interested unless they are causing trouble (I don't believe the EDL are a banned group per sé despite giving the impression of being a bunch of nasty pieces of work) and I personally would be less than amused at having a group of people deposited on my platform because of the personal/political feelings of a train driver and his/her trade union - particularly if they then became aggressive as a result.

Regrettably part of the job is to transport people around that you may personally feel are disgraceful examples of humanity, providing of course that they are not breaking the law while on the rail network. If they've paid their fare and are behaving they are still passengers/customers.

If of course they are holding a demonstration or causing an issue on board the train or stations themselves that is a different matter entirely.

 

[DarloRich]

It seems like a continuation of the long standing, fine and worthy tradition of left wing political action against facism and racism. It is the kind of decent politcal action i expect from a Trade Union.

How it will apply in practice, however, will be interesting to see.

 

[jb]

Should drivers be able to pick and choose who they transport?

Basically, no - and that's the end of it.

I will not be tracking the movements of the EDL from one place to the next, but if I become aware of a group of their members on my train I shall be exerting pressure on my controller to get them met by Police and ejected at the first (and, hopefully, least convenient) opportunity.

Really don't want to be rude, but this smacks of misplaced self-importance. It is not your place to exert any pressure on anyone, let alone track the movements of others (whatever that means, and presuming they are not obviously acting unlawfully).

 

[AlexS]

I should probably point out that my post is not intended as a dig at O L Leigh personally (he may not work with a guard, I suppose!) but a general comment on ASLEF's decision on this matter!

 

[Oswyntail]

It seems like a continuation of the long standing, fine and worthy tradition of left wing political action against facism and racism. It is the kind of decent politcal action i expect from a Trade Union.

How it will apply in practice, however, will be interesting to see.

Alternatively, it could be seen as a continuation of the long-standing, less "fine and worthy" tradition of denying the rights of others to hold and express views of which you disapprove without you interfering. Which, of course, is itself a form of fascism. And it is the kind of political action I used to expect from a Trade Union, but which I had hoped such bodies had grown out of.

 

[Nick O. Teen]

I once had a carriage full of EDL on one of my trains. There were BTP and civvy police on the platform where they got on; when I walked through the train, one of them showed me his ticket (they all had valid tickets) and asked me if the police had said anything, like 'keep an eye on that lot, mate'. I replied that they had said exactly that.

"I promise we won't misbehave", he said, "we just want to get where we wanna be and back home again". He was right - they were all impeccably well-behaved and polite.

Therefore, no reason to refuse them service. Their beliefs are theirs, I don't agree with them, but they caused me no trouble.

Just an observation.....

 

[The Barlow Boy]

However, the hypocritical amongst the union will have no problem in transporting any members of the Socialist Worker's Party. A far left Marxist inspired organisation dedicated to the insiduous overthrow of democratically elected governments who for years supported and continue to support the I.R.A. and are invariably behind various industrial strife. Most of the teaching unions have been infiltrated by them as have many others including the R.M.T.
They have over the years have caused much more damage than the out and out thugs of the E.D.L. and the N.F. before them.

 

[Hellfire]

I think this all boils down to whether this decision by ASLEF is taken purely to protect its members or whether it is taking a political stance.

I would have some sympathy if it was purely the former but I suspect that, at least part of the decision is because the activists who make decisions on behalf of ASLEF members are doing this for political reasons. That is completely unacceptable.

I have seen UAF members engaging in mindless violence at demonstrations so is ASLEF going to ban them as well. NB I hold no brief for either of the two organisations.

As many have pointed out we have more than enough laws to deal with people misbehaving on the railway. That misbehaviour is not confined to EDL members or some football fans as many forum members will know.

One of the prices you pay when you live in a free and open democracy is that people with whom you violently disagree share your right to free speech within the law as it stands. The other price you pay is that no one has the right not to be offended
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

if I become aware of a group of their members on my train I shall be exerting pressure on my controller to get them met by Police and ejected at the first (and, hopefully, least convenient) opportunity.

O L Leigh

Just out of interest and assuming the said EDL supporters are behaving properly, on what grounds would you be asking the police to eject them?

 

[yorkie]

I once had a carriage full of EDL on one of my trains. There were BTP and civvy police on the platform where they got on; when I walked through the train, one of them showed me his ticket (they all had valid tickets) and asked me if the police had said anything, like 'keep an eye on that lot, mate'. I replied that they had said exactly that.

"I promise we won't misbehave", he said, "we just want to get where we wanna be and back home again". He was right - they were all impeccably well-behaved and polite.

Therefore, no reason to refuse them service. Their beliefs are theirs, I don't agree with them, but they caused me no trouble.

Just an observation.....

How unusual. Here is an observation, and here is another observation that is more typical of the behaviour of EDL demonstrators. I suspect the ones you met are the easily led type who get drawn into supporting them, rather than the hardcore.

 

[dcsprior]

I will not be tracking the movements of the EDL from one place to the next, but if I become aware of a group of their members on my train I shall be exerting pressure on my controller to get them met by Police and ejected at the first (and, hopefully, least convenient) opportunity.

Really don't want to be rude, but this smacks of misplaced self-importance. It is not your place to exert any pressure on anyone, let alone track the movements of others (whatever that means, and presuming they are not obviously acting unlawfully).

If EDL members are travelling en masse, they'll presumably be going to some form of action/demonstration, where it is almost certain they will commit crime: even if non-violent, the EDL's raison d'etre is spreading racial hatred which as I understand it is a crime in itself.

So in this case, O L Leigh is talking about a hypothetical situation where he knows that a group of people are on their way to commit a crime. Having the police called is the correct thing to do - and exerting pressure to ensure the matter is taken seriously is not unreasonable.

 

[TDK]

I don't want to join this debate but: If ASLEF are wanting to protect their members why should any driver have to take folks that do not agree or are racist (this works both ways) against a certain group (s). I think ASLEF are using this as a propaganda mechanism to show their support for the left wing in my opinion.

If I am gay, should I refuse to take a group of honophobics attending a demonstration against gay people. If I am a Christian should I refuse to take a group of people from a different religion to a demonstration agains Christianity? If I am Tory should I refuse to tale labour activists to a demonsttration against Tory policies? Any demonstration has their minority of people who want to go to cause trouble and the only reason these people attend these demonstrations is to battle with others. Does anyone on here think that ASLEF should be supporting the BTP, Civil police etc instead of sprading the Left Wing word about?

This is poor in my opinion of ASLEF. Yes, fight racism, yes fight violent groups, yes fight terrorism but why not try to protect all it's members?

 

[6Gman]

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?

But if I read it correctly they're not saying this group should be denied travel, but that drivers from ethnic minorities should not be rostered to such work as they might face abuse.

 

[jon0844]

So in this case, O L Leigh is talking about a hypothetical situation where he knows that a group of people are on their way to commit a crime. Having the police called is the correct thing to do - and exerting pressure to ensure the matter is taken seriously is not unreasonable.

Even the police can't generally stop people moving about on the basis that they think they're about to commit a crime, unless there's some specific exclusion order, ASBO or whatever.

They might be able to stop people and ask some questions, but even that is often seen as a controversial issue, but to just remove a load from a train on a hunch?

Would that then mean shops stopping EDL members coming in to their store, as they might be about to buy a sandwich before going out to commit crime?

If they're not breaking the law ON the train I can't see how you can force them off.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

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.

But there is more to this. As has already been stated, ASLEF, like other unions, is a political entity. This is as much a statement of political opposition as it is a statement of intent to withhold the right to travel. The movements of the EDL have become so associated with the railways that there might be a connection in the minds of the public with the EDL and the railways and an assumption of tacit support from within the industry. This statement is a way of one of the largest group of railway workers distancing themselves from the activities of the EDL.

Personally I support it. I will not be tracking the movements of the EDL from one place to the next, but if I become aware of a group of their members on my train I shall be exerting pressure on my controller to get them met by Police and ejected at the first (and, hopefully, least convenient) opportunity.

O L Leigh

Because...............? A union has taken a political stance - don't get fooled because this is exactly what it is. This is the tip of a soviet style non-person approach. "We don't agree with your political views so out you go". You'd have fitted in well in the former East Germany with that sort of outlook.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

The biggest fascist threat is from Islamic extremists and unlike the EDL they have a proven track record of mass murder. Why isn't anyone refusing to transport them ?

 

[455driver]

I dont like white socks, can I ban anyone who wears them from my train?

 

[jopsuk]

The biggest fascist threat is from Islamic extremists and unlike the EDL they have a proven track record of mass murder. Why isn't anyone refusing to transport them ?

It's easy to spot the EDL on the way to a ****up and fight, what with them wearing EDL tops, hats, balaclavas, carrying flags etc.

Tell me, what does as Islamic extremist look like?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Tell me, what does as Islamic extremist look like?

The pictures issued of the man involved in the incident of murder in Woolwich do not seem to fit the usual bearded North African/Middle Eastern/South Asian stereotype of such a type.

 

[jopsuk]

The pictures issued of the man involved in the incident of murder in Woolwich do not seem to fit the usual bearded North African/Middle Eastern/South Asian stereotype of such a type.

Bingo. That's why I asked the question. ASLEF aren't talking about banning individual members of the EDL from travelling, they're talking about refusing to drive if an obvious group - in "uniform", with banners, bags full of cheap booze- boards.

Meanwhile, distinctly non violent arabic muslims often look like everyone's stereotype of the bearded violent fundamentalist, whilst some of the most dangerous dress like any other brit of whatever skin hue. It's been quite funny to see racist morons struggle to process this- expressing outrage that they wear the same brands.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Bingo. That's why I asked the question. ASLEF aren't talking about banning individual members of the EDL from travelling, they're talking about refusing to drive if an obvious group - in "uniform", with banners, bags full of cheap booze- boards.

Meanwhile, distinctly non violent arabic muslims often look like everyone's stereotype of the bearded violent fundamentalist, whilst some of the most dangerous dress like any other brit of whatever skin hue. It's been quite funny to see racist morons struggle to process this- expressing outrage that they wear the same brands.

This isnt about race though - it is about religion and there have been enough fundamental Islamic groups on the way up to 'rallies' at Luton spouting hatred - they have hothead extremists the same as the BNP/EDL do.
I just can't understand why people allow religion to get away with things that would be labelled fascist or nazi if it was a political group. A fascist is a fascist whether it calls itself EDL or fundamentalist Islam. Appeasing either is lke trying to appease Hitler.

 

[rebmcr]

53 posts on this topic before Godwin's Law is impressive.

 

[O L Leigh]

I feel like I've walked back in to find someone let the lions in. Seems I've been accused of everything from political naivety to ideological prejudice.

A number of clarifications, if I may.

Firstly, I am aware that this statement is as much a political one as it is a statement of intent. In fact, I believe that I was the first in this thread to point it out. I believe I also pointed out, at a time when everyone else was pondering over the mechanics of this, that it would be a difficult thing to achieve.

Secondly, I am not ideological. I am merely pointing out that such restrictions on movements can and have been imposed on the basis of the actions of a group of people. I should stress that the important deciding factor is the actions, not the beliefs. While I find their views and beliefs odious I have no problem with people believing whatever they wish.

While it is indeed perfectly legal to demonstrate, the actions of the EDL and the things that they wish to demonstrate about are, regrettably for them, illegal. They incite racial hatred and divisions and almost always end up committing public order offences too. Like the football hooligan "firms" I mentioned earlier, there really isn't much of a question of whether or not they will commit a criminal act. They simply cannot avoid the inevitability of it.

O L Leigh

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Even the police can't generally stop people moving about on the basis that they think they're about to commit a crime, unless there's some specific exclusion order, ASBO or whatever.

Anyone remember the pre-1980's days of the so-called "Sus Laws" that were employed by the police force up to that time ?

 

[jopsuk]

This isnt about race though - it is about religion and there have been enough fundamental Islamic groups on the way up to 'rallies' at Luton spouting hatred - they have hothead extremists the same as the BNP/EDL do.

I do appreciate this- though there's already government action taken against such groups. For example, every time fundamentalist clown Anjem Choudry (the guy behind the poppy burning incident) starts up a new group, it seems to be banned by the government pretty quickly, despite him being as much of a real threat as a yeti (he does hang out with some nasty people, mind, though any serious jihadi would I'd have thought stay well away).

 

[O L Leigh]

A few more points by way of further clarification, if I may.

Would that then mean shops stopping EDL members coming in to their store, as they might be about to buy a sandwich before going out to commit crime?

If they're not breaking the law ON the train I can't see how you can force them off.

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 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.

ASBOs have been mentioned which I will assume includes other means of non-custodial measures. How do we know that members of the EDL are not subject to restrictions on travel, association and other activities by the criminal justice system? I would imagine (and fervently hope) that these eejits are being targeted and, where offences are committed, action taken proportionately.

Because...............? A union has taken a political stance - don't get fooled because this is exactly what it is. This is the tip of a soviet style non-person approach. "We don't agree with your political views so out you go". You'd have fitted in well in the former East Germany with that sort of outlook.

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.

I have been at pains to point out that my basis for objection has nothing to do with a person's views or beliefs and everything to do with their actions.

This isnt about race though - it is about religion and there have been enough fundamental Islamic groups on the way up to 'rallies' at Luton spouting hatred - they have hothead extremists the same as the BNP/EDL do.
I just can't understand why people allow religion to get away with things that would be labelled fascist or nazi if it was a political group. A fascist is a fascist whether it calls itself EDL or fundamentalist Islam. Appeasing either is lke trying to appease Hitler.

Godwin's Law.

The difference here is that reactionary Islamic groups tend to act differently to the EDL. If the EDL held rallies where they could all get together and be addressed by speakers at a venue that could be policed and, for everyone else, avoided, then I'm sure they wouldn't be facing as much active opposition. But they don't. Instead, they seem to prefer direct, non-violent (usually) action by turning up in large groups and intimidating and abusing people in their own streets.

I agree that a lot of reactionary Islamic groups spout the same paper-thin nonsense that EDL and the rest do. But for the purpose of this thread we have to get away from what it is that each group represents or believes.

O L Leigh

 

[Monty]

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.

 

[Oswyntail]

.... When the EDL travel on the train en masse it is for the specific purpose of committing a criminal act....

. You do not know this, though. I agree it is possible, even very likely, but I very much doubt there would be any evidence that that is their specific purpose. And I very much doubt ASLEF or any other group except the police and security services has the legal authority to prevent any group going about their perfectly legal business (of travelling) unless they have actually committed an offence, in which case the law covers the situation.

 

[RPI]

I personally don't agree with everything the EDL spouts about but they are however a legitimate protest group who are allowed to protest and from what it seems they have members from all races and religious backgrounds, ASLEF have no right to force their communist views on all of the travelling public because of their political views! Now the thugs within the EDL should be dealt with individually and given ASBO's to stay away from the railway.