web analytics

MEANWHILE, IN CLOWNLAND

By Pete Moore On July 10th, 2019

A Christian doctor lost his job in a government department after he refused to refer to “a six-foot-tall bearded man” as ‘madam’, a tribunal heard.

Dr David Mackereth, 56, claims he was sacked as a disability benefits assessor by the Department of Work and Pensions over his religious beliefs.

The father-of-four alleges he was asked in a conversation with a line manager: “If you have a man six foot tall with a beard who says he wants to be addressed as ‘she’ and ‘Mrs’, would you do that?”

Dr Mackereth, an evangelist who now works as an emergency doctor in Shropshire, claims his contract was then terminated over his refusal to use transgendered pronouns.

I have no idea what his religion has to do with it, but this is the neo-Stalinist world of the British state sector now. Any deviation from the crazy, radical-left wing orthodoxy brings denunciation, loss of position and banishment.

Well I would like to make it clear that I too will not refer to “a six-foot-tall bearded man” as “madam”. This is because I live in reality and have self respect. Anyone who is offended or has a problem with that can get stuffed.

The Welsh can get stuffed. I’m thinking of the mentally deranged politicians and bureaucrats who have decided that school uniforms should be something called “gender neutral”. The poor boys and girls stand no chance. Boys wear trousers and girls wear skirts. That’s the way it is. Anything else is deviant.

41 Responses to “MEANWHILE, IN CLOWNLAND”

  1. His employer told him to treat everyone who came to see him with respect and dignity (regardless of his beliefs on them). He refused to do so. He should be sacked.

  2. They explained he could undergo training about the department’s policy, but the DWP had consulted lawyers and was adamant that any report or contact with clients should refer to them in their chosen sex otherwise it “could be considered to be harassment as defined by the 2010 Equality Act”.

    The doctor replied that “in good conscience” he could not conform to those demands, and so the contract was terminated between them.

    It seems he refused to follow Dept policy and therefore the stipulations of his contract.

  3. Here’s a simple solution. Just call someone exactly what they ask to be called. No different to someone’s given name. If a bloke wants to be referred to as she just do it. Your tongue isn’t going to fall out saying it. There is absolutely no need for any fuss or refusal to do so.

  4. Seamus –

    It’s disrespectful for a man to demand that someone normal refer to him as a woman.

    Paul –

    No-one chooses their sex.

    Everyone –

    Grow up, have respect for yourselves.

  5. No-one chooses their sex

    By comment was in relation to DWP policy not about the sex or gender of a person.

  6. A six-foot-tall bearded man who believes himself to be a woman is clearly mentally ill, as are those who believe that the farce should be indulged.

  7. “It’s disrespectful for a man to demand that someone normal refer to him as a woman.”

    No it isn’t.

    If a person wants to be called a man, or a woman, or neither, or both, or Superman, it in no way shape or form harms you to call them that. But may just make their day if you did call them that. And might hurt them if you don’t.

    So, in all things, live by the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. To paraphrase, don’t be a dick.

    And even if you are going to ignore those basic rules of common civility don’t ignore them on your employer’s time.

  8. Pete Moore,

    Grow up, have respect for yourselves.

    The only one who needs to grow up here is you Pete.
    Once again your hypocrisy speaks volumes. You’re the first one to complain when a Muslim goes against employee guidelines, and won’t serve somebody alcohol in a supermarket. But when the doctor goes against Department of Work and Pensions guidelines, the rules no longer apply. Pathetic.

  9. Seamus – it is not ‘civility’ for somebody who is sane and sees what is in front of him to call a six-foot bearded man a woman. 2 + 2 only equals 5 under totalitarism.

  10. It is civility to refer to someone as they want to be referred. If someone wants you to call them a woman then call them a woman. It causes you no harm.

    This isn’t totalitarianism. This is an employer telling you to do something. If your contract of employment says 2+2=5 then it is bloody stupid of you to insist otherwise.

  11. So no bad request made by an employer should ever be resisted?

    The boss is always right?

  12. If it is your contract of employment to do something and your employer asks you to do it you don’t argue. The only requests, bad or otherwise, that should be resisted are those that are illegal, abusive, unreasonable or unethical.

  13. The requests here are both unreasonable and unethical.

  14. They aren’t. They are in line with what the law says. Whether you like it or not a person can decide to go by a different gender than what their biological sex says. That is the law. A person can do so. An employer forcing their employee to recognise that legal fact is neither unreasonable or unethical.

  15. If your contract of employment says 2+2=5 then it is bloody stupid of you to insist otherwise.

    Seamus – do you not see anything wrong with that? The entire point of Big Brother is to destroy free will by forcing it to conform to wrongfulness. A six-foot bearded man is not a woman no matter how much he insists that he is. That is mental illness and should be treated accordingly. And now, as we can see, the law is imposing the lie on the people:

    You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.

    Solzhenitsyn

  16. This isn’t Big Brother or an imposition on free will. This was an employer requesting that a member of staff treat all potential clients of that employer with respect. And the law doesn’t require him to refer to that person as a women. His employer does.

  17. Seamus – the employer wasn’t a corner shop: it was the government. That is Big Brother

  18. The employer was the employer. This is the government, as an employer, doing what employers do. It is not the government as the government doing it.

  19. The employer is always right.

  20. The employer is not always right. But unless he is wrong, and I mean legally wrong, you do what he says or you lose your job.

  21. Seamus – the government told a man to accept that a 6-foot bearded man is to be considered a woman, the consequence of disagreement being loss of livelihood. Do you see nothing wrong with that?

  22. The government didn’t. His employer told him.

  23. …the government told a man to accept that a 6-foot bearded man is to be considered a woman…

    No they didn’t. They simply asked would he be willing to refer to the man as ‘She’ or ‘Mrs’ if he requested it. That’s not accepting that he is to be considered a woman, it’s asking him would he be courteous to a patient. His own beliefs weren’t required to change.

  24. Seimi Seamus and Dave. You are banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain simple common sense and reasonable civility to those here who insist on supporting pointless stubbornness.

  25. Seamus, on July 11th, 2019 at 10:09 PM Said:

    The government didn’t. His employer told him.

    The government is the employer – this is the government being Big Brother, and anybody in disagreene==emnt loses his job

    A Christian doctor lost his job in a government department after he refused to refer to “a six-foot-tall bearded man” as ‘madam’, a tribunal heard.

    Dr David Mackereth, 56, claims he was sacked as a disability benefits assessor by the Department of Work and Pensions over his religious beliefs.

  26. “The government is the employer – this is the government being Big Brother, and anybody in disagreene==emnt loses his job”

    Yes. In this case the government is his employer. But this is the government acting as an employer, not as the government. It really isn’t that complicated.

  27. Here is an example of “simple common sense and reasonable civility”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/teenager-who-went-viral-after-arguing-with-his-teacher-that-there-are-only-two-genders-told-its-not-a4180816.html

    A teenager who went viral after arguing with his teacher that there are only two genders will not be allowed to return to the school where he filmed the confrontation.

    The unnamed 17-year-old secretly filmed the moment he was reprimanded by a teacher at Mearns Academy in Aberdeenshire, who said his view on gender was not in line with school policy.

  28. So a student is disruptive in class, is removed from class, and then uses a recording device (which are banned in schools for obvious reasons) to record his teacher disciplining him, has been suspended? Shock horror.

  29. The government is the employer – this is the government being Big Brother, and anybody in disagreene==emnt loses his job

    It’s not, it’s the Government meeting legal requirements:

    The DWP had consulted lawyers and was adamant that any report or contact with clients should refer to them in their chosen sex otherwise it “could be considered to be harassment as defined by the 2010 Equality Act”.

    And being civil.

  30. it’s the Government meeting legal requirements:

    No – that is to be determined……..

    The doctor is now suing the government at an employment tribunal for discrimination on the grounds of his religious belief.

    The doctor who was dismissed is a Christian: what would have happened had he been muslim?

    Many at ATW are now so utterly degenerate that biological facts – the hypothetical bearded man is a man: there are only male and female – are subordinate to their feelings and their intent to compel those who disagree to accept that 2+2=5 or face loss of livelihood and career.

    contact with clients should refer to them in their chosen sex

    their ‘chosen sex’…….utter degeneracy

  31. Allan

    Nothing to do with what gender a person is. A six foot bearded man is still a six foot bearded man , but if he wants to be called Shirley, just call him Shirley. It’s not the end of the world !

  32. No – that is to be determined……..

    The DWP lawyer advised that not to do it could be considered to be harassment as defined by the 2010 Equality Act. Now, I haven’t looked at the legislation but I’d bet that the DWP lawyer is in a better position to interpret it than an oil engineer from Aberdeen.

  33. but if he wants to be called Shirley, just call him Shirley

    Him? HIM?? You have failed even by your own degenerate standards

    the DWP lawyer…….

    is as perverted as the government that pays him. Of course she’ll find harassment in a hypothetical case. Btw, who was the victim of the harassment?

  34. Btw, who was the victim of the harassment?

    There was no harrassment. It was a hypothetical scenario.

  35. here ya go Paul…. have you ever seen this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbm03NcEcvg

  36. I would have said to the angry ‘ma’am’ “ calm down dear, no need to get your balls in a twist “ 😉

  37. There was no harrassment. It was a hypothetical scenario.

    A doctor was removed from his post over a hypothetical scenario. The fact that several contributors at ATW see nothing wrong with this confirms the degeneracy which prevails throughout the ‘west’

  38. As explained to you above, he was removed from his post, because he refused to adhere to legislative legal standards.

  39. Actually to be honest I misunderstood this story. I thought this was relating to a real event with a genuine patient whom the doctor had refused to address in their requested manner. That’s different from an answer given in conversation discussing a hypothetical scenario . He shouldn’t have lost his position in that case.

  40. good one colm

  41. I’m not going over to the side of supporting him. Just saying that someone shouldn’t lose their position for simply saying how they would behave in a situation, only that it is justified when they act on their claims in reality.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.