to be struggling with the Andy Gray situation...

[cestlavie]

I mean, I get it, but one thing I'm struggling with is how and when people get 'punished' for holding certain views.

So if privately you have, shall we say, negative thoughts about certain groups of society - Asian men, women in general, Jewish people etc. - how and when should you be punished for this?

Presumably holding these views per se isn't enough? Equally, discussing these views privately isn't enough either. Certainly, in a free, democratic society, people should be free to do so.

So two questions:

1. Are there certain sorts of people who just should not be allowed to hold these views? I mean I guess politicians probably shouldn't but what about others? If you're in the public eye is that enough to mean you musn't hold these views? If you're a singer, actress, sports star, D-list celeb, TV presenter? Are all of these people expected to hold "acceptable views"?

1. Or is it okay for them to hold whatever view they want provided it's not public? It's okay for a D-list celeb to be as racist as you like provided nobody knows. And what happens if privately held views only become public without that person being involved - a secretly taped conversation for example, or an off-mike comment? You're suddenly punishing them for something which isn't their fault.

At what point is the 'punishment' kicking in?

Pretty much, yes. Actually, Chil1234 has already said what I was going to say and much better

I think thats about right,Mayor.

What are the fans on the terraces going to be chanting?

"Gabby"

Most places of work have diversity and discrimination polices, and you sign up to these policies when you sign your contract.

These policies include sexism. These men made sexist comments in the work place.

They have justifiably been held accountable for this.

If people must indulge in twattish behaviour, they should do it in their own time. Happily, in most places of work it is in breach of contract to be twattish during work hours.

LeninGrad - an MP represents everyone in his/her constituency in so far as he will act on their behalf if he/she is requested to do so and is able to assist BUT this is not the same as expecting him to hold the same views as everyone...something that no-one can achieve.

We have no way of knowing how many people agree with any MP on any given issue.

jellybelly If you read around it becomes clearly evident that this was daily, par for the course, behaviour for these guys - not a random or occasional occurrence

On the whole people can think whatever they like, and say whatever they like (apart from 'incitement to...' type things), but it's doing this in the workplace that is inappropriate. There are a lot of people who don't work in the public eye who would also be in trouble for this (and following on from the ref comment, it is a second offence in a few days), so I don't think it's a case that 'famous' people are held to different standards, however, it would be naive of them to think that their employers wouldn't care about the impact their behaviour has on the very public image of the company.

I have to say in this case, it seems like the comment (not the one about the ref, the later one about 'tucking it in') is probably no worse than a lot of people have experienced in the world of work, in less enlightened organisations, but the point is, that every time something like this is swept under the carpet or brushed off or whatever, it is a tacit acknowledgement that it is acceptable, and people can go on doing it. On that basis, and given this guy was already in trouble for the ref comment, I think it was right that he was asked to leave. Things only change if, little by little, people insist on it.

D

most people will sign contracts with clauses about equality, no harassment etc
besides if they hold those views proclaim them publicly and are not punished, it will give license for similar stupid bigoted sexism idiots to do the same in their workplaces

for all the complains about 'political correctness gone mad' I still prefer being in the work place free from being subjected to that kind of words/ behaviour regardless of their privately held views, I can keep away from such people in my private life, work is different, choice is not always possible

It could be illegal JB if you cause harassment alarm and distress to anyone. Voicing your opinions in public is acting on your prejudice and could incite racial hatred -so be very careful.

Sacking them was way too easy.

They should have been ridiculed for their prehistoric views. Make them run up and down the lines for a few league games and let's have their decisions held up for debate on national TV. They would soon learn how tough the linesman role is, and no doubt the sight of the pair of them red faced and sweaty would give us all a laugh. They could wear dresses too.

scurryfunge - I agree, but if all someone is doing is offending someone with their views, that is tough. The law is not there to stop you being offended.

someone said something i agreed with the other day, you can only be called racist if you are white, you can only be called sexist if you are male and one other i cant remember

quite true really - the double standards are really quite outrageous sometimes

scurryfunge - which is wrong, of course.

JB if the comments go beyond offensive and fall into harassment alarm or distress in a public place it is not tough. If you voice hatred of a nationality/culture and those with a disability on the high street I bet my pension you will get nicked {smile].

sueperlative (sic) - Incorrect

sueperlative - I am deeply offended by your ridiculous statement, but you have the right to trot out such drivel if it is your want. I do not have the right to stop you offending me. I think that was the point of the OP.

superlative, I think we can at least all agree you are talking shite.

superlative -very incorrect

LeninGrad you're right, and going back to the Andy Gray case, it's the poor people who have to put up with such twattish behaviour on a daily basis who are the ones that the law was made for. It wasn't made to control people's opinions or freedom of speech, it was made to protect the rights of people who want to do a day's work without being subject to rude comments about their gender, sexual orientation, disability etc.

D

Okay, am still feeling a little confused.

If what they said was a breach of contract, then presumably this would have been mentioned at some point? I haven't seen anywhere it being said that Gray was fired for that. I absolutely get that would be a valid reason though

On the other hand as far as I can tell, it's not doing it in the workplace that's led to him being fired per se, but rather that it became public that this had happened in the workplace, or am I missing something?

Also, it doesn't seem to be the case that he's being fired for causing offence or rather, offence has only been caused upon a private conversation being broadcast publicly. Or is it the case that there is no such thing as a private conversation at work? That bosses should be free to eavesdrop on any personal chats, phone calls etc as they see fit to make sure people are obeying their contractual obligations?