(Pay v Lancashire Probation Service ).“The Panel regards the nature of the actions shown in the photographs presented and Mr Pays participation in those acts, and also the advertising material for Roissy Workshops Ltd, as incompatible with the role and responsibilities of a Probation Officer. The Panel further takes the view that involvement in such activities by Mr Pay is additionally inappropriate, having regard to his work with sex offenders. The Panel shares the view of the previous Panel … that the Probation Service has a responsibility to the public to demonstrate the integrity of its officers, and that public knowledge of Mr Pays activities would damage the reputation of the Service. The Panel does not accept that the decision to dismiss Mr Pay constitutes an infringement of his rights within the Human Rights Act 1998. The Panel note that Articles 8 and 10 … are qualified rights, and that due regard must be had to the protection of health or morals, and the protection of the rights and freedom of others. The Panel has deliberated upon the argument put forward on Mr Pays behalf that the Probation Service should have considered alternative employment for Mr Pay within the Service. The Panel, however, took the view that any such proposal was inappropriate, given its conclusion that the activities of Mr Pay had been found to be incompatible with the role of any Probation Officer”. Analysis of the Statement - Private Life Should Mean What It Says.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples