News, views and top stories in your inbox. Don't miss our must-read newsletter Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

I think I've discovered a lost chapter from George Orwell's 1984.

It involves a dedicated firefighter who goes to an entirely legal public rally in his own time and voices his personal opinion about an important issue of the day.

His opinion is so uncontroversial that it is shared by millions of other people in the country.

Yet he is then summoned to a disciplinary hearing by the firefighters' trade union and sacked from his position representing the London region on its national executive.

It is a terrible blow for a dedicated trade unionist who has been in a union since the age of 16 and an active member of the FBU for 20 years.

Now the assistant general secretary of the FBU is insisting that the sacking has nothing to do with Mr Embery's stance, in doublethink worthy of Big Brother .

“None of the complaints against Brother Embery were made because of his politics, his views on Brexit or his airing of those views,” assistant general secretary Andy Dark has written to members, calling my previous pieces about this scandal misleading.

Yet the complaints heard at the disciplinary hearing against Mr Embery specifically state that the alleged offence was how he aired his views on Brexit.

He was accused of committing an offence “when criticising all those in the movement opposed to the Leave position, by not making an exception of the FBU..."

The hearing was told that his speech "undermined and publicly condemned and criticised” the pro-Remain stance of the union.

(Image: PA)

It was also stated that he shared a platform “with individuals who fell into the category of those with whom there should be no shared platform”.

In other words, Leave supporters.

Mr Embery says: “Andy Dark has written to all members, claiming that I was not punished for airing my views on Brexit but this statement is totally inconsistent with the wording of the allegation.”

And now for possibly the most alarming element of this charade.

Two of the charges against Mr Embery were nothing to do with his Brexit speech, instead alleging that he “Wrongly or fraudulently receives or misapplies Union funds”.

Hugely serious charges. And ones for which there was no proof at all and were dropped because of the lack of evidence.

So why were they ever brought?

“I was furious that the allegation had been made so casually and without a shred of evidence to support it,” says Mr Embery.

“In my view, it was politically-motivated and designed to discredit me.”

I approached Mr Dark but he would not comment, saying it was an internal matter.

I bet he'd like to keep it that way.

This really is not a good look for Remainers, who come across as, at best, petulant when they hear an opinion they don't like and, at worst, undemocratic and intolerant to a degree that would impress Big Brother.