'Despite cases such as PAY v LANCASHIRE PROBATION SERVICE and X v Y, Essay

'Despite cases such as PAY v LANCASHIRE PROBATION SERVICE and X v Y, private life should mean what it says'. Critically assess - Essay Example This essay would also present arguments which show that private life affects a person’s work. Pay v Lancashire Probation Service One of the known cases related to private life and employment is Pay v Lancashire Probation Service ([2003] UKEAT 1224_02_2910 (29 October 2003). This involves a probation officer, Mr Pay, who joined Lancashire Probation Service in 1983 ([2003] UKEAT 1224_02_2910). His work involved â€Å"the treatment of sex offenders† and even had a so-called â€Å"Sex Offenders Initiative† programme which he founded along with another colleague (Pay v Lancashire Probation Service [2003]). This programme â€Å"ran successfully for a period of 4 years† (Pay v Lancashire Probation Service [2003]). His work with sex offenders was properly regarded â€Å"by his employers and by the courts† (Pay v Lancashire Probation Service [2003]). However, it was found out through an anonymous fax letter that he was a member of an organization called Rois sy Workshops Limited (â€Å"Roissy†) that maintained a website, wherein Mr Pay performed the â€Å"fire act,† and merchandised products connected with bondage, domination and sado-masochism (BDSM) (Pay v Lancashire Probation Service [2003]). ... Ms Wyham to whom the matter was referred to, commented that the important issue is â€Å"whether or not as a public servant, and as a member of a criminal justice organisation working with sex offenders and other vulnerable groups, Mr. Pay's activities in his private life, as depicted on the Internet are commensurate with his role as a probation officer and the public trust in him† (Pay v Lancashire Probation Service [2003]). She noted that there might be an effect as to Mr Pay’s disclosure of his relationship to Roissy especially â€Å"on victims who looked to the Probation Service for help† (Pay v Lancashire Probation Service [2003]). She stated that such website information may be ‘badly misinterpreted’† (Pay v Lancashire Probation Service [2003]). The Panel set forth the following reasons for his dismissal thus, â€Å"The Panel regards the nature of the act shown in the photographs presented and Mr Pay's participation in those acts, and al so 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 Pay's activities would damage the reputation of the Service. The Panel does not accept that the decision to dismiss Mr Pay constitutes 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