Page 19 | AIBU to think public racist / anti immigrant / anti trans posts can justify dismissal?

Slightyamusedandsilly · 2026-07-30T17:39:38+00:00

Read a couple of accounts this week of racist, public supporters of the far-right being sacked for spouting race / immigrant / trans hate on their personal social media accounts. One was a doctors receptionist. The other a school learning support assistant. Both roles where they are likely to work with people in the groups they're publicly trashing online. One was recorded at a far-right rally, speaking about the amount of immigrants she was forced to support in her line of work. What is your opinion on this? *YABU* - People should be able to express their opinion without fear of losing their job. Freedom of speech. *YANBU* - Anyone with any kind of public facing role/a role where their employer is likely disapprove of this should not publicly post this way and needs to understand that being sacked is their own fault.

Nihongo · 30/07/2026 19:24

Slightyamusedandsilly · 30/07/2026 19:22

Start a new thread. Off topic.

Show quote history

So, just to clarify - hatred against certain groups is ok, or not?

Wherethedogsits · 30/07/2026 19:24

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 30/07/2026 19:20

Do you think all of the people whose posts are on this site should be sacked?
https://terfisaslur.com/

You mentioned anti-trans in your title but what about violent threats to people holding protected gender critical beliefs?

Show quote history

Any violent threats should be sackable imo.

TheGreatDownandOut · 30/07/2026 19:24

Slightyamusedandsilly · 30/07/2026 19:22

Start a new thread. Off topic.

Show quote history

Uh huh. Well you’ve answered my question anyway. Posting hateful things about some groups is fine but not others. Got you.

user1471538275 · 30/07/2026 19:24

There's nothing to say that they don't perform their duties well despite holding those views.

If there was an issue in their workplace over how they do their job, that would be different.

I think this is very dangerous - it allows people with the 'wrong' views to be hounded out of their jobs by those who believe they have the 'right' views.

Banoffeemuffin · 30/07/2026 19:23

The fact that Lucy Connolly had to serve a full year for her tweet which she then deleted is actual insanity. They were totally trying to make an example of her

Ereshkigalangcleg · 30/07/2026 19:23

Slightyamusedandsilly · 30/07/2026 19:22

Start a new thread. Off topic.

Show quote history

It’s not though, is it? It’s “people expressing hate on social media”.

Wowthatwasabigstep · 30/07/2026 19:22

Gosh so many inflammatory topics lumped in together.

Anti immigration is not necessarily racist.

Anti trans is critical thinking common sense as opposed to woke nonsense.

people are entitled to their opinions some opinions make sense, some are delusional and some are somewhere in the middle.

Original poster

Slightyamusedandsilly · 30/07/2026 19:22

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 30/07/2026 19:20

Do you think all of the people whose posts are on this site should be sacked?
https://terfisaslur.com/

You mentioned anti-trans in your title but what about violent threats to people holding protected gender critical beliefs?

Show quote history

Start a new thread. Off topic.

OP posts:

Ereshkigalangcleg · 30/07/2026 19:21

Slightyamusedandsilly · 30/07/2026 19:19

Aren't both sackable?

Show quote history

Maybe not you, but I think there are quite a few people who would only agree that the statement about immigrants was sackable, including here on MN.

Original poster

Slightyamusedandsilly · 30/07/2026 19:21

user1471538275 · 30/07/2026 19:17

I'm not comfortable with employers dictating what i can say in my personal life.

It smacks of ownership. They don't own me. They pay me to do a specific job.

They don't own my opinions and they should not be able to dictate them outside the workplace.

If they pay you to support immigrant children and you post publicly on SM that you hate immigrants, you're not suited to the job though?

Same with the GP receptionist. She's there to support all patients. Not just the white British ones.

OP posts:

muggart · 30/07/2026 19:20

This is why digital ID and the way we are being forced to verify our identity for social media is going to have a devastating impact on free speech.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 30/07/2026 19:20

Slightyamusedandsilly · 30/07/2026 19:14

I listened to the learning support woman's anti immigrant speech. It was active hate. Fair enough, have the opinion. But it's her job to support children. How can she support them (her job) when she clearly hates a fair proportion of them?

Same with the GP receptionist. She has active and public hate posts (I've seen them) on her very open, public social media. How can she represent the GP when she is racist / has active dislike for immigrants and maybe trans people who she will have to deal with as part of her role at the surgery.

I think it's one thing if you're self employed or have a non-customer facing job. But if part of your job is to support or help the groups you're publicly coming out against, surely you aren't capable of adequately doing your job?

Do you think all of the people whose posts are on this site should be sacked?
https://terfisaslur.com/

You mentioned anti-trans in your title but what about violent threats to people holding protected gender critical beliefs?

TERF is a slur

Documenting the abuse, harassment and misogyny of transgender identity politics

https://terfisaslur.com

user1471538275 · 30/07/2026 19:19

There are so many really divisive issues in our time - things like views on support for Israel/Palestine etc.

Should an employer be allowed to openly support one view and ban their employees from expressing the other view in their personal lives?

Switchnow · 30/07/2026 19:19

Ereshkigalangcleg · 30/07/2026 19:00

TRA Heather Herbert for example, said he hoped Ann Widdecombe died screaming in handcuffs when he found out she had died. Should he be sacked from his job at Aberdeen University?

Yes - I believe HH is under investigation by both the university and police.

TheGreatDownandOut · 30/07/2026 19:19

This is a meaningless question without any context. Who gets to decide what is racist or anti trans or whatever? Because I have seen people label others as racist on here when it wasn’t merited. Ditto with ‘transphobe’

There is a world of difference between saying, for example “death to all <insert minority>” and expressing concern for unchecked immigration.

And what about other groups? What about people who express ageism? Or ableism? Or misogyny? Or are the old, disabled or female fair game? Should we only ban people who say bad things about ‘trendy’ disadvantaged people?

Original poster

Slightyamusedandsilly · 30/07/2026 19:19

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 30/07/2026 18:54

This is problematic, if the views reach a legal threshold like incitement to racial hatred then maybe. If it’s one end of a spectrum of views that are mainstream then where does it stop?

If posting “ immigrants go home” gets you sacked should posting “racists should be shot” get you sacked too?

Who judges what is offensive enough to merit sacking?

Aren't both sackable?

OP posts:

Ereshkigalangcleg · 30/07/2026 19:19

There should definitely be an investigation if the report comes from customers or other staff and the posts are genuinely problematic rather than simply expressing protected beliefs. But dismissal is not always going to be considered proportionate by the courts, it depends on the circumstances.

NotOnYourEllie · 30/07/2026 19:17

I have had to say this to people I know irl who have professional, public facing jobs like doctors. They are much more left leaning but they repost some very dicey things on their social media. If they get caught and get fired, I will feel sorry for them, but it will still be their own fault

user1471538275 · 30/07/2026 19:17

I'm not comfortable with employers dictating what i can say in my personal life.

It smacks of ownership. They don't own me. They pay me to do a specific job.

They don't own my opinions and they should not be able to dictate them outside the workplace.

Original poster

Slightyamusedandsilly · 30/07/2026 19:17

5128gap · 30/07/2026 19:13

Well we don't know what happened in this case or how the posts came to the employers attention. Often it's due to a complaint from the public, which is reputational damage. I agree its not an easy one for an employer to defend though, unless they have very robust SM policies.

Show quote history

For the learning support assistant, there will be a SM policy. Schools are hot on that.

Less sure about the GP receptionist. Although I'm sure the health service have very similar policies to education.

OP posts:

Ereshkigalangcleg · 30/07/2026 19:16

Fair enough. You’re ok with misgendering in his case, I’m surprised.

Wherethedogsits · 30/07/2026 19:15

They will all have social media policies and will know what they can and can’t post.

Original poster

Slightyamusedandsilly · 30/07/2026 19:15

Ereshkigalangcleg · 30/07/2026 19:00

TRA Heather Herbert for example, said he hoped Ann Widdecombe died screaming in handcuffs when he found out she had died. Should he be sacked from his job at Aberdeen University?

Yes, he should.

OP posts:

Original poster

Slightyamusedandsilly · 30/07/2026 19:14

I listened to the learning support woman's anti immigrant speech. It was active hate. Fair enough, have the opinion. But it's her job to support children. How can she support them (her job) when she clearly hates a fair proportion of them?

Same with the GP receptionist. She has active and public hate posts (I've seen them) on her very open, public social media. How can she represent the GP when she is racist / has active dislike for immigrants and maybe trans people who she will have to deal with as part of her role at the surgery.

I think it's one thing if you're self employed or have a non-customer facing job. But if part of your job is to support or help the groups you're publicly coming out against, surely you aren't capable of adequately doing your job?

OP posts:

Ereshkigalangcleg · 30/07/2026 19:13

RareGoalsVerge · 30/07/2026 19:05

Freedom of speech is limited not absolute. Incitement to violence is already illegal and it's quite right that it is criminal.and people should absolutely lose their jobs if they have done this. If hateful public speech falls short of criminal as not calling for violence then certainly it is reasonable for employers to start disciplinary procedures under any employment contract clause about "bringing the organisation into d8srepute" which is usually in someone's contract if they are in a position to publicly represent the organisation, and for that purpose statements made on personal social media would count too.

Any such disciplinary procedure would not be an instant sacking - it would require evidence to be examined and a chance to defend oneself, and potentially a final written warning. Not everything that might be considered "hateful" by one person would be universally agreed to be hateful though. For example, there are some people who would define the words "nobody can ever change sex, sex is different from gender and you can change gender but you can't change sex" to be hateful, other people would say it isn't, and this is a view that has already been found in a court of law to be a legitimate position that is worthy of respect in a democratic society so you definitely can't have people being sacked for something that one person considers "hate speech" without a formal process to establish whether what they said was actually unacceptable, or whether the accuser may in some cases be using their own definitions that do not give space for other legitimate opinions. Other examples might include someone conflating legitimate criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism etc.

Exactly and this is what happened in Higgs v Farmors School - the sacking was found to be disproportionate by the Court of Appeal.