DISMISSAL OF COUNCIL EMPLOYEE

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23394, 30 July 1941, Page 10

DISMISSAL OF COUNCIL EMPLOYEE

Sir,—ln Saturday’s issue of "The Press” the. Mayor (Mr E. H. Andrews) makes the -following statement:—“ One member Of the (City Council) staff—a conscientious objector, whose appeal haa been upheld—had been convicted of an offence under the War Emergency Regulations. This man had been asked to resign, and had been dismissed; when he refused to do so.” The statement that the man concerned had been convicted of an offence . under the War Emergency Regulations is quite wrong, and demands a correction. The facts are that the man was convicted of a minor police court offence under the Arms Act (1920), i.e., of failing to notify the police that he had destroyed a rifle. He was .convicted under the regulations made under this act, which require that notification, shall be given immediately a rifle leaves the possession of the owner, and the triviality of the offence is shown by the fine of 20s that was imposed.' The xnisstatement is obviously of grave concern'to this man, and prompt reparation is called for. What is more senouir from the point of view of the citizens of Cfarisichurch is that the bhHc;authorities, in dismissing this.employee. have. apparently/acted under an-ehtirely false assumption. If this is so, and: from Mr Andrews’.statement no other conclusion can be drawn, the dismissed man should be Immediately reinstated and an apology made.— Yours, etc., - A EFFOBD Glialnnah, Fellowship of Conscientious Objectors. filly 28, 1941. (.■‘'“’’"MUs immaterial under what reguwas charted.” said the »■ t i .. •

Mayor (Mr E. H. Andrews) when shown this letter. • “He certainly broke the law by destroying a rifle- without notifying the authorities, and that rifle had been called up for the defence of the country.”] v Sir,—ln Saturday’s paper in a statement the Mayor made a grave error of fact concerning the dismissal of a conscientious objector on the City Council’s staff, whose appeal had been allowed, This employee was not ‘convicted under the War Emergency Regulations but (see “The Press” of June 14) “for destroying a firearm without notifying ■ the police,” an offence under Section 32 of the Arms Regulations, 1931, made pursuant to the Arms Act, 1920. • •• Does this lack of regard for truth typify the manner of the dismissal of this employee, or does it mean -that the employee, in . fact, was dismissed for a breach of regulations which he did not commit. —Yours, etc., J, BLACK. July 27, 1941.