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?

He has been fired for making Sky look bad.

Possibly because someone at Sky didn't like him so leaked the footage.

The girl is from Coventry and local radio have stated this will not do her career on the pitch any good at all and could end up making more difference to her than either of the men

MrSpoc, it is a classic defence mechanism whether it is to survive in the workplace, pub or football park.

of course it is scurryfunge, not that fact that he is a great friend and is also like this with his family.

Nice try though

The idea that holding a view is offensive is a bit odd as without it being expressed you don't know that the view exists.

it's like making "thinking the word cheese" illegal.

All we know about other people is their actions.

Once again gives up on explaining things to MrSpoc.

.

Good question on the "dirty Paki" question - obviously very offensive but how should it be treated at work (assuming it doesn't breach contract)?

If it's a private conversation, intended to be private but:

• someone accidentally overhears
• someone overhears whilst deliberately eavesdropping

Can you be punished for any private conversation you have at work, be it with a mate, partner on the phone etc. What about if no-one is actually offended by what you say (although others might find it offensive)?

cestlavie, if no one else hears or sees the comment then it is not likely to be complained about or discovered. So it's a bit like "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?"

The problems arise when people do hear or discover what was said. You can be as racist and offensive in your own head as much as you like but translating those thoughts into words or deeds makes it likely that someone will know about it.

Could your workmate's views be deemed illegal, Kaloki, as incitement to racism, for instance?

That's what DH said, Coalition. It comes down to Andy Gray presenting a bad image. I don't have a problem with Sky sacking him for bringing the company into disrepute, but that's different from the absolute standard of whether his view really was intolerable to ever say out loud EVER in a private conversation (which some consider to be a sackable crime all by itself, iyswim?)

Dh has quipped that if you are alone in the forest and state aloud something false, are you still wrong?

ragged, that is the point, it is about who receives this information. If it is a conversation between two like minded racists, then neither are likely to complain are they?

If it is a telephone conversation or email conversation then that is when it has the potential to have a third party knowing the content. (at my work emails are monitored, phone calls and radio traffic are recorded).

Ah, but if you thought you were alone in the forest, would it be ok, or do you always have to keep such thoughts private.

If you bottle this stuff up then it tends to warp and become something worse. If you get it out and people tell you off for it, you tend to change your mind. So getting it out is better. I don't like the idea of racists/etdc. bottling their thoughts up and never getting challenged on them.

ragged, if you shout racist things in the forest , you will not fall foul of any employment law or racist law because no one would hear you and no one would therefore be in a position to judge the comments .

The fairies and elves might think you are a bit weird though

"
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?"

In my company if you say anything casually sexist/racist/homophobic or send any questionable emails/texts you can expect to be disciplined. The excuse that you were chatting to a like minded colleague on your break wouldn't wash. The company doesn't want anyone who even holds such views and you never know if a commissioner might be near anyway.

stayfrosty that is not an equivalent example
in many ways
although not all priests molest children some have, the lineswoman ability to do her job is just not the same, have there been many lineswomen incompetent at their job?
(nevermind the criminal component)
but if women in public should make sexism remarks then they should be treated the same

sexist not sexism

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

The fact is that the video as well shows that he was harrasing a woman in the workplace. She was completly ignoring him, suggesting to me, and commented on by others, that its not the first time he has done this. Sky have failed as they have waited til this got inot the public eye to deal with it. They should ahve dealt with t years ago.

I haven't read all the thread, but just wanted to say that I am really pleased he got sacked.

Sexism in the workplace - and by this I mean undermining women by making constant remarks about their ability based on their gender, AND making constant sexual innuendos/harrassment - is still RIFE in he workplace, especially in male dominated enviroments.

It's about time men kept their attitudes/thoughts to themselves at work imo.

I'm convinced it was the remarks he made to his female colleague that pushed Sky into sacking him

I would put money on someone at Sky Sports being sick to the back teeth of his 'banter' and leaked all the clips!

I honestly feel that this case has nothing at all to do with the 'thought police' or freedom of speech or anything, it has to do with a vile man, as well as being vile, also being too stupid to keep his job. The fact is, he said something inappropriate and stupid at the weekend, that brought his company into disrepute, while the media storm over that was still going on (and he was probably being reprimanded for it), he was stupid enough to make another inappropriate comment on Tuesday. Honestly, I don't know why anyone would feel sorry for him, while you're still being b0ll0cked for misconduct, you don't carry on doing the same thing. Anyone who has ever really worked...well...anywhere, must understand this.

IMO, he deserved to lose his job for:

1. Actions that brought his company into disrepute (the lineswoman thing)
2. Harassment of a colleague at work on grounds of gender (the microphone thing)
3. Failure to carry out his job in a professional manner (both incidents) (And probably 4) Failure to modify his behaviour following a warning).

He can think what he likes, he can't say it at work, I'm not completely free to say what I think at work either, and I don't know anybody who is actually. It's not thought police, it's called being professional.

D