MAN BANNED FROM SOUTHEND HUB FOR BELIEVING IN THE DEVIL

BY JAMES SIMONS

David Preston, who manages the center admitted he ejected  Philip Johnson because his views about the devil caused offense to a member of the public who was also using the computers there. A staff member at the hub had apparently brought up the topic of whether the devil existed and it led to an open discussion in which the black male stated his views that the devil may or may not exist, but if he does exist there will be no way for doubters to know.

According to accounts of what then transpired, the male said ”the biggest lie that the devil ever told was that he does not exist”. The staff said he had heard that saying before, then eventually the subject was changed. The male was approached the next day and told his comments offended someone who complained, and Mr Preston then foolishly and ignorantly acted on that complaint. The complaint got to the attention of eye of media.com, and we duly went to investigate the matter.

We were told that that Mr. Johnson had caused offense in expressing his views about the devil, but had also tried to use the staff toilet to ease himself before going somewhere else when told he could not use it. Shocked at this, we asked Mr. Preston whether he thought every complaint against him should result in a punishment irrespective of whether the complaint was valid to which he responded no. Mr. Johnson expressed a wish to complaint about Mr. Preston’s behaviour, and when asked who he should complaint to, he stated ”myself, because I am the manager”.

However, this was a disgraceful lie; for the right channel of complaint against a manager in his position was to Southend Borough council, who employ him in the first instance. The eye of media.com then contacted Southend Borough council, reminding them of the Human Rights Act that affords to every individual the right to freedom of expression and freedom of opinion and religious beliefs, asking them to justify how one of their managers could eject a person on the basis of him expressing his views about the devil.

I don’t believe the devil exists anymore than I believe pigs fly, but for a man to be so arrogant and drunk with power to believe he has the right to discriminate against one’s personal view is crazy. Worse of all, David Preston lacked the integrity and professionalism to direct the complainant to the right channel where he could express his complaint legitimately.

When eye of media.com contacted Southend Borough Council to inquire about the qualifications that deemed him suitable for a managerial job, we were told he had none in particular, but had other  life experiences that made them deem him worthy of that position.  Any academic qualifications, errh, came the response. Qualifications are not always considered necessary for some managerial jobs, but when managing a group of people on the computers, you are expected to at least have some professional training.

Basically, their admission was that this man supposedly managing a hub where people use the computers has no qualifications directly related to his job. One would expect even a basically qualified person to be aware of the basic right to freedom of expression and freedom of opinion enshrined in the Human Rights Acts 1998. It is incredibly pathetic that a man claiming to be a manager either was unaware of this or was too ignorant and prejudiced to present this as a reason for ejecting anybody from a place open to members of the public.

” Unfortunately nothing has changed in our findings.  She admitted ”Mr Preston did use the views about the devil as a reason for him to no longer attend the Hub,  but she stated that ” there were other reasons that should have been mentioned at this point”.

Unfortunately, the reality is that those other  alleged reasons were not presented as the reason for his ejection, and for this reason the decision to ban the male was discriminatory and highly ignorant and unprofessional!

.

She continued somewhat ungrammatically:  ”Prior to before you were (he was) asked to leave the Hub I had just been made aware of the other issues. I was investigating the best way to deal with them and I was going to get back to him with a course of action, but when Mr Preston was approached by the user of the Hub about how they were offended he decided to act immediately. We do support his decision taking into account everything that had led to that point”.

When the eye of media.com called Sian Hines office to probe the matter further, her colleague answered the phone and told us she was not present. In her absence, Tracey, who was very articulate and coherent in her explanation of how the hub is run, told the eye of media.com that she worked in the benefit office. This begged the question as to why a complaint about a hub manager was being directed to a benefits officer rather than someone officially placed and independent of Preston, the subject of complaint and our investigation. The reference to her as the person to handle a complaint against the hub manager was not honourable.

Tracey confirmed again that no qualifications were required for the managerial position at the hub  t explained why he lacked the common sense to know about rights to freedom of opinion  and freedom of expression.because those assisting there are ”volunteers”.  ”There are 4 primary services, and each has a director who reports to the chief executive.  The director of corporate service is Sally Holland, who is currently unavailable.

RACIST
Ibiru told us he considers the reaction of Mr.Preston to have been racist, however there is no evidence of such here. It may have been a drunken exercise of power to please whomever the complainant was, if indeed there was a complainant. Alternatively, it may have been a dislike David Preston personally took against  personally took against him for any other reason besides his color.

However, the charge of racism is always understandable whenever an unquestionably unfair and discriminatory action has been taken without justification.  David Preston alone knows if there was a racial element to his daft decision. He was certainly very incompetent and unprofessional in his response to whatever complaint he received. An angry Johnson told the eye of media.com by phone ” the funny thing is that there is no evidence any complaint was in fact made. That’s the disturbing thing”.

The eye of media.com has escalated the matter higher up the chain of command, and will wait to see how this complaint is dealt with. one indisputable conclusion we arrived at is that this man should not be manager. His response was too dim for a prized position as manager, and his bosses really need to have a rethink here about his role here.

 Pic credit to: http://www.facebook.com