A victory for free speech.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph....shed-judge-rules.html

/// "Mr Smith was taken to task for doing nothing wrong, suspended and subjected to a disciplinary procedure which wrongly found him guilty of gross misconduct, and then demoted to a non-managerial post with an eventual 40% reduction in salary. ///

So was it right for him to receive less than £100 in damages?

[Gromit]

Yes it is a victory for free speech.

How much compensation would you pay?

Seems about right to me.

[RedGrant]

I think he should have been compensated for all the lost pay.

[jake-the-peg]

Don't know didn't hear the case but I note it was a final written warning so you'd need to know the details and context.

There has been to much legal attention paid to people's private postings similar to those cases of people being arrested for posting pictures of burning poppies.

Some clarification from the CPS is long overdue

[Gromit]

RedGrant

That is exactly what the compensation was:

// ?..the "very modest" damages due to Mr Smith was the very small difference between his contractual salary and the amount actually paid to him during the 12 weeks following his assumption of his new, but reduced, role. //

He got compensated for his loss of pay.

[andy-hughes]

Legally - yes.

Morally - no.

But the case was the wrong one, borught in the wrong court, so the law was applied as it stands, so it was right.

[rojash]

"was it right for him to receive less than £100 in damages?"

Well, it was according to law. As the judge pointed out, he could have been awarded substantially more if he gone to a tribunal, but he chose to go to court.

And, as he pointed out, he didn't do it for the money, but for the principle.

Good for him.

As I pointed out in your original thread about this case, the stance of his employers in this cas was entirely Kafkaesque.

[RedGrant]

I see so although the salary was cut they still paid the old rate anyway.

[jackthehat]

£100 was the maximum he could receive and it was right that he was ordered to receive that.

[anotheoldgit]

rojash

/// As I pointed out in your original thread about this case, the stance of his employers in this cas was entirely Kafkaesque. ///

Which one was that? I wasn't aware that I had previously posted on the subject.

But then it is possible that I could be wrong.

[sp1814]

The comments were not visible to the general public, and were posted outside work time, but the trust said he broke its code of conduct by expressing religious or political views which might upset co-workers.

Sorry, but what a load of balls. What the hell are the management of Trafford Housing Trust smoking? It cannot possibly be legal.

Absolutely disgraceful. If it were me, I would get a lawyer and sue them personally for emotional distress. And whoever reported the post should...should...well, I don't know - but they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

All the bloke did was say that he disagreed with same sex church weddings. That is a popular position even amongst those who are campaigning for marriage equality. The problem is, C4M are deliberately confusing people by trying to say that the campaign is battling for religious same sex weddings.

Absolute nonsense.

I feel sorry for this man.

[Gromit]

Here is your previous posting on the case AOG, 3 weeks ago.

http://www.theanswerb.../Question1180501.html

It's official, you're losing it :-)

[rojash]

"I wasn't aware that I had previously posted on the subject. "

Well, it didn't involve race, so it probably slipped your mind.

[LazyGun]

Based purely on the facts as presented, His employers were clearly in the wrong to take this case forward, and Mr. Smith was treated poorly by his employers.

Its right that employers have policies that enforce equality and offer some protection from discriminatory behaviour, but those policies should not be used as gagging orders.

Not being familiar with employment law, I cannot understand why he did not take the employers to the employment tribunal for unfair treatment.

It does appear that there was more to this whole action than is actually being expressed in the story though. There is a suggestion that Mr. Smith had received written warnings before, and was on a final warning or whatever.

[Duncer]

"the trust said he broke its code of conduct by expressing religious or political views which might upset co-workers."

If this were to become law then we should all be very, very afraid.

[FredPuli43]

If he was on a warning for the same thing, he shouldn't have been.

[jno]

well, here's a turnup for the books, all these liberal lefties standing up for him (me too).

But where are all the usual suspects who would normally be venting their fury on this guy for demanding his ooman rights??

[anotheoldgit]

/// But where are all the usual suspects who would normally be venting their fury on this guy for demanding his ooman rights?? ///

Making snide and offensive remarks against the poster.

/// Well, it didn't involve race, so it probably slipped your mind. ///

[Brenden]

Nice to see Peter Thatchell in Mr Smith's corner.