Israel uses starvation as a weapon of war, say Israeli sources.

Sponsored Links
Mottie said:
I haven’t read the above but we once sacked someone without going through the proper process for working elsewhere when off sick and he took us to a tribunal. He was an out and out **** and even admitted working and driving for someone else (even though he didn’t even have a driving licence) while he was supposedly on sick leave from us. He bragged in court that it was feck all to do with the manner in which he was dismissed from us and technically he was right. The judge found in his favour, awarded him over a thousand pounds - so much for sick pay, so much for wages, so much for termination notice, so much for holiday pay etc and of course, he was all smiles but then the judge told him he had found him to be a 'totally reprehensible' character and had abused the trust of his employer, he reduced the amount by 100%. It was really funny watching him do the sum in his head and saying to his wife "that’s nothing, isn’t it?". :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Academics do have to be granted some slack to explore their research themes. This particularly chap seems a bit obsessed and his belief's, widely held to be abhorrent. Unfortunately, it seems (according to the Judge) that the investigating professor (prof Banting), was persuaded more by those seeking a witch hunt and his own hostility to Miller's beleifs that his judgement was somewhat clouded. it is this that led to the case being a partial win for the claimant. The lesson for the employer, is no matter how much the employee appears to be a nasty jew hater, you do have to follow a fair and impartial disciplinary process. The same would apply to someone who's belief's were homophobic, islamophobic or so called Gender critical. The disciplinary has to be fair, unbiased and proportional.

The Judge held It was't, but could have been - hence the award of half a pint of beer and half a packet of crips to celebrate with. Good luck getting a new job.
 
Sponsored Links
motorbiking said:
Academics do have to be granted some slack to explore their research themes. This particularly chap seems a bit obsessed and his belief's, widely held to be abhorrent. Unfortunately, it seems (according to the Judge) that the investigating professor (prof Banting), was persuaded more by those seeking a witch hunt and his own hostility to Miller's beleifs that his judgement was somewhat clouded. it is this that led to the case being a partial win for the claimant. The lesson for the employer, is no matter how much the employee appears to be a nasty jew hater, you do have to follow a fair and impartial disciplinary process. The same would apply to someone who's belief's were homophobic, islamophobic or so called Gender critical. The disciplinary has to be fair, unbiased and proportional.

The Judge held It was't, but could have been - hence the award of half a pint of beer and half a packet of crips to celebrate with. Good luck getting a new job.
Click to expand...
As you are unwilling to highlight any specific passages that support your interpretation, the onus is on the reader to accept your interpretation, or to read the whole 108 pages to dispute your interpretation.
On that basis, I will consider your interpretation of the judgment to be exactly that, your interpretation, and not a reliable version of what the judgement contains.
 

"Anti-Zionist beliefs ‘worthy of respect’, UK tribunal finds​

Judges say unfairly dismissed academic David Miller’s views on Israel should be protected by antidiscrimination laws"

Motorbiking thinks otherwise.

"The belief that Israel’s actions amount to apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide are “worthy of respect in a democratic society”, an employment tribunal has concluded in a landmark decision.

In February the tribunal ruled that Prof David Miller was unfairly discriminated against when he was dismissed by the University of Bristol over allegations of making antisemitic remarks, in a decision the Union of Jewish Students said set a dangerous precedent.


The tribunal has now published its 120-page judgment setting out why Miller’s beliefs warranted protection under antidiscrimination laws.

Passing the ruling, the employment judge Rohan Pirani said: “Although many would vehemently and cogently disagree with [Miller]’s analysis of politics and history, others have the same or similar beliefs.

“We find that he has established that [the criteria] have been met and that his belief amounted to a philosophical belief.”

Miller, who lectured at the university on political sociology, told the panel he thought Zionism was “inherently racist, imperialist and colonial”.

Motorbiking disagrees.
 
JohnD said:
Motorbiking thinks otherwise.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't, he points out that the award to him will be reduced by 50%, because of comments made by the professor on social media which whilst not allowed as evidence in the case against him, would have likely led to his eventual sacking anyway.

Read the report.

As MBK said, he'll struggle to find another job.



edited to read 'not allowed as evidence'
 
Last edited:
Odds said:
Judge Rulez - okay.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
I have noticed that Motorbiking tends to be obtuse when he is on uncertain territory.
He will state his interpretation of something, but he will refuse to present the genuine article.
He relies on the laziness of the reader to not check his facts. Understandable considering some on here refuse to read further than the first sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top