The MSE Forum will be undergoing some maintenance this evening. As a result, some users may experience temporary performance issues. Please use the Site Feedback board to report anything major. Thank you for your patience.

pure hypothetical question - previous behaviour before employment

Dakta
Dakta Posts: 561
First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
Forumite
This doesn't apply to me, but a hypothetical situation in which similarities may apply to someone I know.

The situation is this, 8-9 years before the person started their current role, the subject may have been a  member of a far right party. As part of this they stood for election, and not only got a bit of news attention at the time but also may have made music videos mocking politicians and with lyrics support the cause and 'putting the country back how it should be'

The videos are old, as are the articles, but have now surfaced up from the bottom half of the internet which has a nasty habbit of being accessible with the correctly typed google searches. The person works in a busy, corporate organisation with diversity campaigns and has found a role managing a mixed race team.

Given the age of the content, the ease if which it can be located and the age/ naivety of the author when the content was first posted to the net, could this pose a problem given that freedoms to political beleifs now appear to be protected?
«1

Comments

  • Nick212010
    Nick212010 Posts: 53
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Political affiliation is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

    As we’ve seen with the cricketer Ollie Robinson, previous internet activity has come to bite him in the !!!!!! with his employers, the ECB and Sussex CCC. I think any employer is on a sticky wicket with this sort of disciplinary action, however a president appears to be set for those in the public eye and it’ll be a matter of time before cases emerge against regular Joe Public for similar historical actions.
  • Marcon
    Marcon Posts: 10,310
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Dakta said:
    This doesn't apply to me, but a hypothetical situation in which similarities may apply to someone I know.

    The situation is this, 8-9 years before the person started their current role, the subject may have been a  member of a far right party. As part of this they stood for election, and not only got a bit of news attention at the time but also may have made music videos mocking politicians and with lyrics support the cause and 'putting the country back how it should be'

    The videos are old, as are the articles, but have now surfaced up from the bottom half of the internet which has a nasty habbit of being accessible with the correctly typed google searches. The person works in a busy, corporate organisation with diversity campaigns and has found a role managing a mixed race team.

    Given the age of the content, the ease if which it can be located and the age/ naivety of the author when the content was first posted to the net, could this pose a problem given that freedoms to political beleifs now appear to be protected?
    It certainly could and may well do so while we have so many members of the Permanently Offended Brigade looking for causes.
    Googling on your question might have been both quicker and easier, if you're only after simple facts rather than opinions!  
  • pjcox2005
    pjcox2005 Posts: 1,014
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    Marcon said:
    Dakta said:
    This doesn't apply to me, but a hypothetical situation in which similarities may apply to someone I know.

    The situation is this, 8-9 years before the person started their current role, the subject may have been a  member of a far right party. As part of this they stood for election, and not only got a bit of news attention at the time but also may have made music videos mocking politicians and with lyrics support the cause and 'putting the country back how it should be'

    The videos are old, as are the articles, but have now surfaced up from the bottom half of the internet which has a nasty habbit of being accessible with the correctly typed google searches. The person works in a busy, corporate organisation with diversity campaigns and has found a role managing a mixed race team.

    Given the age of the content, the ease if which it can be located and the age/ naivety of the author when the content was first posted to the net, could this pose a problem given that freedoms to political beleifs now appear to be protected?
    It certainly could and may well do so while we have so many members of the Permanently Offended Brigade looking for causes.
    The examples on this thread so far are a far right party where i presume the comments are potentially on the verge of racism, and Ollie Robinson whose posts were racist and misogynistic even if trying to be humorous. Are you stating those are not things to get offended by?

    Personally I think that the passing of time reduces the consequences if they have shown different behavior since, but for Ollie it doesn't seem ridiculous that ECB do an investigation just to check they are things for the past and then welcome him back to the team if all fine. Can you imagine nothing being done and then 3 weeks later a flood of recent what's app messages get released.

    I'd say the same with the OP example, of management just checking they are comfortable with the person they employ and represents the company. Doesn't mean firing, just a check and potentially just letting them know they are aware of past views and hope they have changed. As another poster said, people can say things but not without consequences. 
  • tacpot12
    tacpot12 Posts: 7,893
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    I think this historic behavior could present a problem for the employer. If the person you know has a good relationship with their line manager (or a rescuable relationship, if it is not good), I think I would advise that they tell their manager about this material, but assure them that their views have changed. They can ask their manager to help them record activities and actions that show that their views have changed if this material ever became a problem. 
    The comments I post are my personal opinion. While I try to check everything is correct before posting, I can and do make mistakes, so always try to check official information sources before relying on my posts.
  • TBagpuss
    TBagpuss Posts: 11,198
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Forumite
    Yes, they could pose a problem. An employer is entitled to consider how the information impacts their business and their relationship with the employee. It might amount o situation where the employer considered that he mutual trust and confidence had been breached, or (particularly if there was  a lot of publicity for any reason) that it meant that the employee could no longer carry out their role.

    Political beliefs are not an automatically protected characteristic - what is a protected belief is "genuine and important philosophical position"  (i.e. the belief doesn't have to be a religious one) where the belief "touches on an important part of human life, would be accepted by others and  cannot be shown to be a direct attempt to harm others"

    I am not sure whether active involvement in a far right party would meet the 'would be accepted by others' part of the test - probably it would, if it was in a position to field candidates for election, however abhorrent it might be to the majority. However, it might fall foul of the test about deliberate attempts to harm others.

    Also, the recent appeal about the transphobic employee only found that on the very narrow issue, her belief's *could* fall within the definition. The issue of whether she was in fact discriminated against or whether the actual choices made by her employer were lawful wasn't tested. So in the same way, the political views of your (hypothetical) far-right politician *might* fall into the definition of the protected characteristic of religion or belief, but that is not the same as meaning that they could not face any consequences for their actions


    All posts are my personal opinion, not formal advice Always get proper, professional advice (particularly about anything legal!)
  • Undervalued
    Undervalued Posts: 8,839
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Dakta said:
    This doesn't apply to me, but a hypothetical situation in which similarities may apply to someone I know.

    The situation is this, 8-9 years before the person started their current role, the subject may have been a  member of a far right party. As part of this they stood for election, and not only got a bit of news attention at the time but also may have made music videos mocking politicians and with lyrics support the cause and 'putting the country back how it should be'

    The videos are old, as are the articles, but have now surfaced up from the bottom half of the internet which has a nasty habbit of being accessible with the correctly typed google searches. The person works in a busy, corporate organisation with diversity campaigns and has found a role managing a mixed race team.

    Given the age of the content, the ease if which it can be located and the age/ naivety of the author when the content was first posted to the net, could this pose a problem given that freedoms to political beleifs now appear to be protected?
    Your post implies (but doesn't actually say) that this person hasn't been employed all that long?

    If they have been employed for less than two years they can be dismissed for no reason at all, or for any reason apart from the few that are protected by law. Unlike religion political views are not protected.

    Even if they have been employed for longer what you describe could easily be argued to "bring the organisation into disrepute" and be a valid reason for dismissal.

    The fact that they appear to be stupid enough to think this sort of thing wouldn't surface might also be thought a valid reason to sack them!

    Finally you say "may have made music videos" - either they did or they didn't!



  • oh_really
    oh_really Posts: 907
    First Post First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    Forumite
    edited 11 June 2021 at 2:14PM
    I recall several cases where the individual having been dismissed has gone on through the tribunal stages e.g https://www.fgsolicitors.co.uk/legal-updates/bnp-councillors-dismissal-violated-echr-freedom-of-association

    Courts have commented UK law appears to be lacking in this respect.
  • Dakta
    Dakta Posts: 561
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Forumite
    oh really - i read the same thing which made me wonder if its not so cut and dry as you'd expect

    "Finally you say "may have made music videos" - either they did or they didn't!". 
    its a very vague writing style, i think you can assume they did
  • Marcon
    Marcon Posts: 10,310
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 11 June 2021 at 5:39PM
    pjcox2005 said:
    Marcon said:
    Dakta said:
    This doesn't apply to me, but a hypothetical situation in which similarities may apply to someone I know.

    The situation is this, 8-9 years before the person started their current role, the subject may have been a  member of a far right party. As part of this they stood for election, and not only got a bit of news attention at the time but also may have made music videos mocking politicians and with lyrics support the cause and 'putting the country back how it should be'

    The videos are old, as are the articles, but have now surfaced up from the bottom half of the internet which has a nasty habbit of being accessible with the correctly typed google searches. The person works in a busy, corporate organisation with diversity campaigns and has found a role managing a mixed race team.

    Given the age of the content, the ease if which it can be located and the age/ naivety of the author when the content was first posted to the net, could this pose a problem given that freedoms to political beleifs now appear to be protected?
    It certainly could and may well do so while we have so many members of the Permanently Offended Brigade looking for causes.
    The examples on this thread so far are a far right party where i presume the comments are potentially on the verge of racism, and Ollie Robinson whose posts were racist and misogynistic even if trying to be humorous. Are you stating those are not things to get offended by?
     
    You mean vicariously offended? This trend of being offended on behalf of others can be taken too far...
    Googling on your question might have been both quicker and easier, if you're only after simple facts rather than opinions!  
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards