To be very worried by MN's puritanical campaigning?

[1984looms]

I have just been reading the Scudamore thread and find it so worrying that MNHQ and some Mumsnetters are effectively stoking up a campaign against us having any sort of a private life. It is ironic, given that MN relies on anonymity, that there is no thought given to the consequences of demanding that people's private thoughts and comments be policed in the same way as our public behaviour. Can posters really see no problem at all with demanding that a person's private comments are hauled into the open and subjected to public humiliation? The logic of what is being argued here is that Mumsnetters could not be anonymous and even more, should be held to account by their employers for comments they make on the site. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Read this to see where this kind of mindless, sheeplike campaigning will take us. www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_article/policing-private-speech-the-new-inquisition
Mumsnet is becoming a significant cheerleader for a terrifying 1984 culture.

He sent those emails from a work email account from which you cannot (and should not) expect a guarantee of privacy. It is a medium for work and thus its use should be subject to the same standards expected when acting in a professional capacity. I'm fairly sure he was in breach of his workplace's internal IT and Conduct policies, in addition to being guilty of failing to exercise common sense and decency.

his secretary had to read them all, they were not private only for the intended recipient

Typical Spiked, the germ of a reasonable point lost in a completely over-egged article.

I disliked what Scudamore said, was exasperated by all the lazy bandwagon-jumping bad journalism and opining that followed its disclosure and am firmly in favour of respect for personal privacy.

But I still found that article really annoying. Particularly in the way it belittled and misrepresented the controversy over the Spurs chants as 'football fans calling ourselves Yids'.

And I don't think it is debatable whether what Scudamore wrote was sexist-it clearly was.

His private comments were made in a non-private way and directly call into question his ability to do his job.

It might have been his work email but he clearly intended it to be a private exchange. His PA should have respected this, not blabbed to the newspapers. Besides, posters are also calling for all his PRIVATE correspondence to be trawled through to establish his 'guilt'. Do you 'exercise common sense and decency' at all times in your private, informal communications with friends and family? Have you ever told, heard or laughed at a joke that someone, somewhere might not agree is funny? Scudamore should be judged for what he has actually done for the FA, not castigated for what people think can be assumed about him from what is in effect, an eavesdropped conversation. For all we know, he might, on other occasions, tell his mate that he has overstepped the mark or moan to his wife about what a sexist wanker the guy is. We cannot know the complexities and contradictions of someone's full character and so should judge them on their public selves.

I always thought that most of the point of having usernames and anonymity on here was because we're often talking about very sensitive issues and don't necessarily want people in RL to know it's them posting.

I met a MNer the other day and am quite sad that I've not seen her on here since - I can only think because she knows that I know who she is (unless she's name changed).

OP, is it really so difficult to refrain from referring to women as 'gash'/ 'big-titted broads', and propagating the hoary old myth of female irrationality? Yes, I do exercise common sense and decency in my private and public discourse, because frankly, it isn't that hard not to be offensively obnoxious, whether or not you are head of the FA.

I am bemused by your idea that 'the complexities and contradictions of someone's full character' necessarily include extreme levels of misogyny.

Not wanting misogynists in charge of big organisations is not some kind of 1984 dystopia. It's called not treating sexism as if it's OK.

Spiked generally does treat sexism as if it's OK. Which, to me at least, greatly detracts from their pretences to be respectful of the rights of the individual.

If I sent anything like that from my work email I would be sacked ...why is he any different?

it's a WORK email - he should save his sexism for his private email account - he's an idiot

I have 2 football playing girls - the eldest is very very good and hopes to play for England ...nice to know the men in charge of her sport think of her as 'gash'

Isn't it that some jobs demand a certain attitude? Football is known to harbour sexist and racist attitudes so doesn't it stand to reason that the guy in charge should be above board in those areas - especially when he is overseeing women's football, which is struggling from a horrendous history of prejudice?

To my mind it doesn't matter whether the comments were private or public, they were his thoughts - and as such he isn't suitable for that job, is he?

I agree with posters that he should not have said what he did via a work email. however i also agree with OP that going over his private thoughts and discussions with a fine toothed comb isn't right.

'Scudamore should be judged for what he has actually done for the FA' - and then when we've finished doing that, we can judge what he's done for the Premier League, which is who he actually works for

God I hate Spiked. Hideous contrarian libertarian arrant woman-hating bullshit written by wankers.

Hideous contrarian libertarian arrant woman-hating bullshit written by wankers

Well said!

His office would have policies of personal conduct, IT use, HR all of which his idiotic emails breached. That he intended them private is irrelevant. They were written at work on work equipment. Not his home PC on Hotmail. Therefore his conduct has direct professional implications.

He's in breach of multitudes of policies common in workplaces. Everyone else would be disciplined up to and including dismissal. He it seems is not. Why not?

According to Spiked's 'Manifesto', "Where censorship discourages debate in favour of silencing the allegedly offensive or hateful opinion, freedom of speech insists on holding people to account for their beliefs and challenging their claims in the public sphere."

Isn't that all people are doing re Scudamore, challenging his beliefs in the public sphere?

I can't help wondering if Spiked would be quite so full of angst if Scudamore - or anyone else in the public eye - had his life splashed over the front pages for having an affair. Or any other kind of relationship offering salacious mileage.

They'd have to be indignant every day of every week, given this sort of tattle forms the core content of so many mags and papers. At Leveson, many papers claimed it was an important public service they provided, having private investigators spy on footballers to find who they were having sex with.

Yet it's the same issue of exposing private thoughts, discussion and behaviour (not that Scudamore's comments were private - work email is work email), and their relevance one's professional life.

There's an argument to be had around public interest vs invasion of privacy in all cases.

I can't help feeling Spiked's sudden concern for privacy is because this case is about sexism, rather than sex...

And to be clear, I think Scudamore does have freedom of speech to call women "gash".

He just can't expect to be employed for certain jobs if he does so.

Of course private comments should not be judged in the same way as public statements but both Prince Charles and Scudamore should be aware that all comments, made to anyone, will be judged at some level by those who hear them.

A work email, copied to your PA, should not refer to women as gash. Whether it is sackable is debateable but I would have thought that in his position it probably is.

It really is not ok to belittle 52% of the population through age old stereotypes and sometimes a line has to be drawn.

When you send an email from a business account, it is like sending a letter on company letterhead and it is your responsibility to behave appropriately.

I think it is outrageous this man has not resigned or been sacked. Had he made racist rather than sexist remarks, he would no longer be in post.

It doesn't say much for the FA's Respect campaign if it's CEO can behave like this. As others have said, he will be in breach of numerous policies and their code of conduct.

In not resigning he demonstrates arrogance beyond belief and the FA is a toothless organisation for not sacking him for gross misconduct. I can't believe he needs a disciplinary hearing given the circumstances.

I'm very worried that some mumsnetters sound like they are parroting the daily mail.

The point you are all missing is that freedom (and the privacy which must be protected to make it meaningful), if it means anything at all, is freedom of conscience and yes, that means, the freedom to be a sexist idiot when you are talking to a mate. You don't have to like Scudamore, marry him or sleep with him. You are, thankfully, free to argue against ACTUAL discrimination against women where you see it. But what he says in a private email is not discrimination, it's just a silly joke or vocabulary you don't agree with. If a guy said such a joke directly to you in a pub, you would be quite entitled to tell him he is a prick, but you shouldn't be able to get him chucked out of the pub. You can, of course, seek out a different pub next time where only people with the same outlook as you exist (good luck with that). If you carry on demanding the silencing of views you don't like, we will end up in the most horribly sanitised world. I dread to think what kind of trouble our sons and daughters will get themselves into when right-on mumsnetters are running the world, having set themselves up as the holy arbiters of public or private discourse and tastes.

Sorry, what happened to: 'holding people to account for their beliefs and challenging their claims in the public sphere'?

Or are you saying that because (according to you) Scudamore was speaking privately, the rest of us are not allowed to comment on what he said at all?

My opinions, as expressed here, would be counter to some of the policies of my employer. Should I be sacked (I am very good at my job)? If I shared these views with a friend using my work email or on my work PC, should I be sacked? If I expressed these views in the corridor to a workmate, should I be sacked? If I expressed these views in a public meeting held at my workplace, should I be sacked? If I argued against some of the workplace policies at a workplace meeting, should I be sacked?

The point you are missing 1984 is that he used a works email address. Anyone with any common sense knows is not the same as normal banter. You are defending his 'intentions' while missing the point that work emails are for work. Not sexist banter that anyone who works with you can access. His mistake, his consequences.