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?

Leningrad: if it was gross misconduct dop you think he would still have been fired for gross misconduct if the comments had not become public?

Gray was fired mostly because public opinion turned against him. In the world of commercial TV, if your presenter is attracting hostile public opinion and if this is going to make the ratings drop then the advertisers threaten to pull out unless the TV company gets rid of the presenter.

Well, with employment law being as tight as it is these days, they wouldn't have been able to sack him 'just because'. There would have to have been breach or contract or gross misconduct or similar.

could be (thinks back to law school employment law) vicarious liability - employers are vicariously liable for their employees actions in the workplace. So SKY are opening themselves up to sexual harassment law suits from employees on the receiving end of Gray & Co's behaviour by continuing to tolerate it. Clearly there has until now been a policy of 'tolerance' in place, but now the can of worms is open & it's all gone public they can't hide anymore.

TV presenters can be fired for much lesser reasons than breach of contract etc. Old women for having a few wrinkles. Old men for making jokes about tsunamis... TV's a tough game.

They;re ambassadors for the Sky brand, which doesn't want to be seen to be backwards thinking or sexist.

They wouldn't have got into such trouble if they were presenters on the Tits and Cars channel for example.

That's why people like Jan Moir and Melanie Philips are allowed to espouse their own brand of poisonous hate via the grubby platform that is the Daily Mail, but would be sacked from Sky or the BBC for similar.

It all boils down to brands and brand values.

The punishment isn't really about the crime, there are far reaching points about sky wanting to be clean so then more purchasing can take place. Therefore remove any possible obstructions quick smart.

If this had been in another organisation - such as the BBC who didn't sack a presenter for acting in a similar not appropriate vein last year, then the whole thing would blow up and blow down as they didn't have a secret agender, punishment was 12 weeks suspension

You can hold whatever offensive views you like privately. But you must not express your prejudices at work or act in a way that discriminates or bullies others. You must also not act in a way that breaks the law, particularly public order law and the law relating to inciting racial hatred.

Rightly or wrongly, some (politicians, public servants, those advertising a brand) are held to higher standards than others. Thems the breaks.

I think superlative was taking the mick a little. there was a thread the other day where some people basicly said that White People cannot be diescriminated against because they are the dominent culture. So abit of tongue and cheek I think.

Also what the two guys said was out of order but soon office banter will have to stop. where do you drow the line.

For example - I worked with an asian lad (very funny lad) he would always take the piss out of his background. abit like the indian comedy that use to be on. stuff like, Yes Sir, No sir, ill polish your shoes for you sir, and it will be done in a strong indian accent.

Some numpty in the office get offended on his behalf. Mental.

If you're a paid representative of an organisation, you don't have the same freedom to just say whatever you feel like saying when you're working in a public-facing capacity for them.

Okay, but it's all still pretty confused as to what he's being fired for.

If it's that it's at odds with the "Sky brand" then surely the fact that he held these views at all would be enought to fire him, i.e. if someone reported a conversation he had with a mate in the pub.

If it's to do with employment law/ workplace harassment/ vicarious liability then it's not been mentioned at all and also, I'll bet you a zillion pounds this isn't the first conversation he's had like this so I suspect it's not really to do with that.

It still seems to come down to the fact that it became public and that someone in his position (whatever that means) shouldn't hold those views.

You know what I'm confused by? Why it is so damn hard for some people to understand that people are expected to act professionally when at work and run the risk of losing their job when they don't? It's not weird, it's normal. It's not thought crime, censorship etc. It's just part of what you get paid for.

it has nothing really to do with the presenters view - the reason they where sacked and resigned was due to sky wanting to be squeeky clean or it could scupper their purchasing power very soon. Forget about reasons and what they did - it hit the headlines and wasn't to good publicity so they had to go and quick

I agree Kaloki - it would be good if people could act as is expected and when they don't they should have sessions to explain why their actions are not appropriate

Agree with Kaloki. Rocket science it ain't.

I would think cestlavie it's a combination. Officially, it is probably harassment, and yes it has probably been happening for years, but the public nature of this means Sky have no deniability, therefore no choice but to dismiss.

Certainly what I heard on Radio 4 was that he was being fired not for the ref comment but for a later comment made in the studio where he was asking a female colleague to tuck his microphone down his pants. Radio 4 have mentioned a few times that the girl in question (presumably this was captured on B roll) looked very 'unimpressed'. I keep thinking of her, thinking I bet she has had to put up with this cr@p for years, and finally, they've been stupid enough to do it just a couple of days following the ref comment. I would think it was the one after the other that made the situation untenable. After the ref comment, he really should have been making an effort to be beyond reproach, but it seems he wasn't bright enough to toe the line.

D

kaloki I think sadly for a long time in sports reporting this kind of behaviour was considered in some warped way to be 'professional' - it was so much the norm.

Thanks goodness it's now changing!

Also bear in mind this is all kicking off about a female assistant ref - its 2011 FFS, not 1811 or 1911!!! It still beggars belief that a female in this position is so freaking unusual in 2011.

MrSpoc, I am not sure you need to defend superlative and I think you have deliberately misunderstood the content of the thread you are referring to.

And what your friend was doing was acquiescing to the dominant group in order to survive at work.

I gather Gray was fired for a public joke to a colleague about her sticking something down his trousers, it was actual conduct that constituted sexual harrassment.

How many of you would still have your job if your every email or comment was broadcast to the world? That especially includes every comment you made over the water cooler or email you sent whilst at work or from a work email addy?

I don't think they should have been fired for sharing thoughts that were supposed to be off-mike. Nothing any of you have said has made me feel different. I am happy for them to be slated by all sundry. Getting dragged onto Never Mind the Buzzcocks and teamed up with the LinesWoman they slagged off would have been a fitting outcome (modern equivalent to head in stocks with people throwing tomatos at you).

I think at the end of the day all of us hold some opinions that might be considered offensive by the majority, to share those in a private way (how the Sky presenters were talking, what Gordon Brown said about the bigoted woman, what Phil Jones wrote in emails about people trying to destroy his work, etc.) -- there should be a space for people to express private thoughts, even when they're at work.

The exception is when they've revealed illegal behaviour, that's the only time when I think it's really in the public interest to publicise these private thoughts. Otherwise it's thought-police nonsense.

ragged, thinking is not the problem. Voicing those beliefs is.

I agree with cestlavie. I don't believe that simply HOLDING a view is in itself offensive, and neither is voicing an opinion that isn't deemed to be offensive by the person at whom it is directed, even if others find it offensive. I can't imagine that Sian Massey, the lineswoman in question, was remotely upset by the remark herself (although we don't know this for sure) but I think Andy Gray deserved the sack anyway for unprofessional conduct, even though he was actually sacked for other "offensive" comments directed at a female colleague. I think the episode highlights an interesting point, though, that women are judged by men solely on the grounds of their gender,and not on their capabilities, and that some men seem to find this perfectly OK.

So ragged I used to have a work colleague you used to comment loads about "dirty pakis" should he have been sacked for it even if he was saying it while on his break but still on work property?

scurryfunge - my friend did not act the class clown in order to servive in the work place. How have you made that judgement.

He is naturly a very funny person and plays on stereo types wether we are in the pub, office or playing football.

What a weird world you live in.