Paul Embery

[velbert]

[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

[velbert]

From Twitter:-

Tom George
@LFBtomgeorge

This is the official twitter account for the Deputy Commissioner & Director of Operations at London Fire Brigade. Immensely proud to be serving London.




[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

[ronnie55]

A heck lot of things currently wrong within the FBU, and I've been vocal in the past pointing this out along with others sadly no longer with us.

This decision in ridiculous in the extreme. Definitely some undercurrent going on here.

I voted remain, but I respect his right to express his viewpoint.

Paul Embery is a fine union official, even though he's a Londoner.

It's the FBU's loss there aren't more like him.

[bill.advanced]

Yes well out of order, I am a passionate remainer who simply does not understand why anyone wants to leave the EU.
But I fully respect the right of Paul or anyone else to state their views, not only in their own time, anytime, anywhere.

The fire brigades union have crossed a line here, a line that should never have been crossed.

[Buaireadair]

Just wait until the next time the FBU unfurl the banner at a rally that doesn’t have the support of every member.

[wally]

Jon Cruddas MP: In Defence of Paul Embery

• Posted on
  
• in Blue Labour
  
  
• on July 23, 2019
  
  

by Jon Cruddas MP

Paul Embery is a friend of mine; born and raised in Dagenham and proud of it. He is also a hero, a firefighter and for twenty years an active member of the FBU. However Paul faces being kicked off the FBU national executive and debarred from holding office for two years. His crime? He is a pro-Leave voice on the left – in a party and union movement increasingly hostile to dissenting opinions. Paul sees the EU as an “anti-democratic” force. His views are not my own, but his is a legitimate, essential contribution in an intolerant debate around Brexit, the referendum result, and the future of the left.

His pro-Leave view and defence of the referendum result — a referendum in which many working-class voters chose to leave, including 70% in Dagenham — has directly contributed to his sacking and debarment. His case has received coverage in the national press, and many of my colleagues in the Labour Party have privately raised their concerns about the FBU’s position and its implications.

First, the facts. Paul has been accused of acting “in a way prejudicial to the interests of the union” by speaking at the Leave Means Leave rally in Parliament Square on 29 March. The FBU has made it clear it was the content of Paul’s speech, not his attendance, which led to this disciplinary action. In his speech, Paul criticised the position of pro-EU labour movement leaders and called for the referendum result to be respected. For this, Paul was told he had “undermined and publicly condemned” the FBU’s Brexit position, which was to support Remain in the referendum and to oppose to a ‘no deal’.

When Paul stood on the platform on 29 March, there was no mention of the FBU. Paul was taking part in the rally in his own time and for a totally separate organisation, Trade Unionists Against the EU. Paul was not acting in an official capacity. We must presume the FBU’s position is that no official may express a view contrary to that of the union in his or her spare time, an extraordinary position for the union to hold. Personally, in nearly 40 years involved in the union movement, it would have debarred me from holding office on numerous occasions!

If the union does not overturn the decision to sack and debar Paul, the implications for both the FBU and the wider union movement will be profound. The history of the movement in Britain has always been one of debate, argument, and civil disagreement. Union members have always been allowed to argue for positions contrary to their union’s own view, as long as it is made clear that they are representing themselves or another organisation. The left’s traditional commitment to freedom of expression, and indeed the necessary right to express personal dissent, demands that union officials are not held captive to their union’s line at all hours of the day and in all situations. Fortunately, the FBU itself recognises this. Its own guidelines state that it supports the “right of individuals to disagree with the agreed policies of the union.”

Paul’s potential sacking and debarment are illegitimate and unjustified, even under an extreme, disingenuous interpretation of the FBU rules. The case further unravels when we consider its implications. Are we suggesting all FBU officials, and by implication all trade union officials, cannot, under any circumstances, publicly disagree with the stated position of their union when speaking in a personal capacity or when representing another organisation? This would prevent union officials playing an active role in many voluntary, civic, or political organisations. It would violate basic rights to freedom of expression. It is an impossible demand.

Many have suggested that Paul’s sacking was a politically motivated act, an attempt to silence a pro-Leave voice. If so it would be a sad day for the FBU, and wider labour movement. I am sure, however, that the FBU will recognise its mistake, and rectify it.

Paul’s views on Brexit are not my own. That is why those in the Labour movement who share my concerns defend Paul’s right to express them. His speech on the 29 March advocated reconciliation between those who voted Leave and those who voted Remain. I also argue for such reconciliation but it will not be possible without dialogue and a spirit of fraternity.

The right of trade union officials to advocate for political causes not necessarily advocated by their own unions – in their spare time – should be a sacrosanct freedom on the political left, especially on an issue as divisive as Brexit.

If, at this crucial time in our history, we reject pluralist debate and turn our backs on the search for reconciliation, then we cannot claim to be the voice of working people. We must insist on the right of trade union members to defend alternative points of view in their own time. We should recommit to the basic freedoms secured by previous generations of working people. This is about democracy and the principles our movement was built on.

Jon Cruddas is the MP for Dagenham and Rainham

https://www.bluelabour.org/2019/07/23/jo...ul-embery/

[noisycat]

This is disgraceful. The FBU hierarchy are acting like the senior managers, they are suppose to be dealing with on a daily basis. I don’t know Paul personally but I remember him talking on the tv during some industrial action and he came across brilliantly. Perhaps MW sees him as a threat to his power base. If this ban goes ahead, I certainly won’t be renewing my OOT membership.

[ben]

All that Paul has done for his guys in London and the wider FBU, hang your heads in shame

[Buaireadair]

Perhaps the question needs to be asked?
If I voted to leave the EU in the referendum, and voice my opinion about it, should I be canceling my membership with the FBU, as I have acted in a way that is prejudicial to the interests of the Union?
I AM SPARTACUS

If the FBU are claiming they can’t represent me because of my legal political view, I’ll happily send my membership card back, the day that the FBU tell ME, how to vote and think, is the day i become a non member of the FBU.

[clutchbucket]

I voted to stay in the EU but now I would vote to leave, quite clearly at odds with official FBU. I await my invitation to explain myself and the subsequent trip to the Gulag