90 Miles From Tyranny : Free Speech Win: Railway Conductor Wins Suit Against Being Fired for Questioning ‘White Privilege’

infinite scrolling

Thursday, July 28, 2022

Free Speech Win: Railway Conductor Wins Suit Against Being Fired for Questioning ‘White Privilege’


In what is being hailed as a victory for free speech in Britain, train conductor Simon Isherwood has won a suit for being wrongfully fired from his job over remarks questioning so-called “white privilege”.

Mr Isherwood, who was supported in his case against the West Midlands Trains (WMT) by the Free Speech Union (FSU), had been fired in 2020 for questioning left-wing ideology after being required to take an online diversity course on “white privilege”.

Forgetting to turn off his microphone after completing the course, Isherwood turned to his wife and said:“I couldn’t be arsed because I thought, ‘You know what, I’ll just get f***ing angry.’ You know what I really wanted to ask? … and I wish I had, ‘Do they have black privilege in other countries? So, if you’re in Ghana?’”

The railway conductor said that he made the comments because he felt that the diversity training officers were trying to indoctrinate the workforce into believing that all white people are inherently racist, an idea which he rejects, maintaining that he personally is not racist.

Yet, merely questioning the dogmatic beliefs surrounding race and the Marxist concept of privilege was enough for his colleagues who overheard the remarks to file a formal complaint, resulting in him being suspended later that day and eventually fired for gross misconduct.


However, on Tuesday, an Employment Tribunal found that he was wrongly dismissed, with the presiding judge stating: “Freedom of expression, including a qualified right to offend when expressing views and beliefs (in this case on social issues), is a fundamental right in a democratic society and one that is protected by the Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.

“In this instance, however, there is the added significance that these views were being expressed in the privacy of the claimant’s home to his wife. They were never intended to be heard by...




Read More HERE

No comments: