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.

1984, are you and your children(?) 'interesting' because you're in the habit of making offensive and prejudice remarks? I think I prefer my 'banal children' if 'banal' is synonomous with respectful and tolerant in this instance!

You don't sound like you actually like other women very much OP.

Mmm my children are either grown up or nearly so.

They have great senses of humour and take the piss on most occasions without ever being unkind or nasty. That's because they are adults both physically and mentally.

How banal for a middle age bloke to giggle over the word gash??

Also my kids understand the difference between being professional at work and having a private life.

It's not hard really is it.

It is interesting that just because I am defending the right of all people, women or men, to say what they wish between intimates, it is assumed that I hate women or wish to make intentionally 'offensive and prejudice remarks' myself. Amongst my friends, men and women alike can be very vulgar (as are very many women on mumsnet), it does not mean we are 'sexist' or 'misogynist', it means that we enjoy the freedom allowed by conversation between friends. Scudamore's secretary would have been better off emailing Scudamore to say that there was really no need to CC her in any future such exchanges and to suggest to him that it would be wiser to conduct his private conversations in a media where he would not be 'overheard'. That would have been the response of a grown-up woman who could be respected and taken seriously and would actively challenge his view of women as silly and irrational. Having been privy to Scudamore's private emails, she would be right to conclude that he is a bit of a prick. It is for her to form a judgement of him. Beyond that, it is none of our business.

There is a real and important debate to be had about this as a general issue. We aren't going to find it in the pages of Spiked though.

"Amongst my friends, men and women alike can be very vulgar (as are very many women on mumsnet), it does not mean we are 'sexist' or 'misogynist',"

Well yes, I manage this too.

But that's because my vulgarity is not misogynist.

Scudamore doesn't seem to have quite managed that, does he?

This conversation took place on company time using company email.
There is no argument to be had.

He knew the rules, he broke them.
Boo fucking hoo.

Well, you are all to be congratulated on having produced whole families of such perfectly trained adults/children who will, undoubtedly, never say anything out of place, a little too loudly, while drunk, in a mis-sent email...hilariously optimistic! Certain Mumsnetters have clearly bred an uber-race of supremely 'appropriate' beings who will have all the 'inappropriate' dinosaurs sacked and take all the best jobs. After they have performed the National Service on the Committee of Grand Inquisitors of course. In the meantime, let's hope they are practising by grassing up all the teachers, lollipopmen/women, football coaches, swimming club volunteers etc who they overhear having a laugh about something their mothers wouldn't like.

you would be sacked, rightly, if what you wrote in a work email contravened the organisation's T&Cs re. the use of work email accounts. I don't see what's problematic about that to understand? I have 7 active email accounts all linked to different parts of my life including employment. I NEVER use a work account for personal communications, I use my personal account.

If a work email account was being monitored by a PA as well as the named employee then it would seem to height of arrogance to think he could say what he said about women knowing that she would see it. What if he'd expressed racist thoughts and his PA was black? is that OK too in your view 1984?

1984

Can you not see the difference between emailing at work, in works time, while you are representing the company and it's ethos to getting drunk in a pub? Really??

Welcome to Mumsnet 1984.

If my kids decided to use their employer's resources to send messages like that my response would be 'well what the fuck did you think was going to happen? Suck it up and learn from our mistakes'

This was an email to a close friend wasn't it ? - jeez, if all my emails to friends were scrutinised I'd probably sound like a right twit in some of them. Aren't the big female names in football standing by him anyway? ( Karren Brady for one )

I have lots of friends at work. If I use my phone or email to text shite and get found out I get the sack.

Who doesn't know this stuff?

Emails to friends on private email accounts in you own time are private.

Emails to friends over works emails on works time are not private.

Let me out it simply. I work in a school. If I called a parent or a child a stupid fucking cunt I would quite rightly be disciplined and sacked.

If I called a mate a fucking cunt in the pub then that would be fine. ( well unless friend objected)

If you or your kids can't see the difference then what's to say really.

OK, to those who suggest that this is just a matter of someone using their worktime and work communication medium for personal stuff, that would surely be a matter for his employer to decide? They might decide that, despite the breach of rules, the employee was too valuable to lose or that they deserve a second chance. If your employer decided to keep you on, would it be right for a baying mob, who have nothing to do with your place of work, to call for the company to enforce their own rules as the external mob sees fit?

To those who actually object to the content of the emails, you are entirely free to form your own judgement of Scudamore now that you know what you know, you can say or write what you like about him and his taste in jokes or what you impute to be his attitudes to women, but you should not feel entitled to pressure his employer to give you his scalp.
We all need to earn a living, even if some of us get paid far more than others. Just because someone is in the public eye and on a high salary, this does not make their capacity to earn a living yours to take away so that you can make a symbolic point about what you think is wrong with society in general.

1984 of course someone's right to earn a living is not less firmly entrenched if they are in the public eye, or highly paid, or both. No one is saying that.

However, everyone knows that one can't treat one's work email like one's private email, especially if it is also copied into someone who may find the contents of the email offensive - so he fucked up. In some firms it could lead to disciplinary action.

On top of this he is supposed to promote an end to sexual discrimination within football. His casual dismissal of women within these emails does suggest a lack of sincerity on his part in this matter. This would lead to questions about his suitability to perform this role in genuine good faith.

Finally people have been sacked for making racist remarks when they thought they were in private. I actually fail to see why this is much different.

Yes private banter however much in poor taste or offensive is completely ok, but this wasn't private.

If he had said these comments out loud with the PA in this room, which led to her feeling awkward, do you think she would have cause for complaint?

As you brought race into, let's not forget the bizarre case of a former footballer (black) who lost his position in the Kick Racism Out of Football campaign for calling a former (black) friend a n**r by text. www.voice-online.co.uk/article/paul-elliott-faces-legal-battle-n-word-text
It is only a matter of time before a woman gets the sack because she says something derogatory in an email/conversation about men like Scudamore!

1984looms I suggest you go and read your employer's IT policy. Yes, you could get sacked.

wowfudgesummed it up well.

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

Oh come on, OP, he used a work e-mail account - it's totally inappropriate, and for many organisations, it would constitute gross misconduct.

Scudamore's language wasn't just sexist, it was misogynistic... can you imagine the furore if he had used racist or homophobic terms? It's a disgrace and he should go.

Nope, not convinced.

Do you think Paul Elliot should have kept his job? I don't.

I do understand your concern that private views should not be held up to the scrutiny of your company but emails from your work email account are not just personal views, and in his case they are relevant to his ability to do his role .

And yes, if it was my child I'd tell him to suck it up and wonder where it all went wrong.

I don't think the man will be out on the streets destitute.

Scudamore is an idiot. He used company time and company resources to make comments, in writing, that many would consider inappropriate.

Disciplinary action is a matter for the employer, not the public at large.

1984 If someone who is employed to promote sport for disabled people posted some "banter" from a work email about retards, mongs and window lickers, you don't think they should face any sort of disciplinary action?