Homophobia in the Media?

spen666

A newspaper today is carrying the story below.

After reading the story, can you please explain to me the relevance of the sexual orientation of the couple being sued?

Or have I read it wrong and the newspaper mean they are gay as in happy?

Foxtons sues gay couple ‘who stole database to poach clients for new agency’

28.09.10 Foxtons is suing a former senior director and his gay lover amid claims they stole the property giant's secret client list to set up a rival agency.

Timothy Hassell is accused of misusing confidential data “worth millions” to poach prized customers for his new central London firm, Draker Lettings.

The 32-year-old was an operations director and lettings manager with 12 years at Foxtons but resigned in January and started a rival business with his partner, Christopher Andrew. The business specialised in rental properties in Chelsea, Belgravia and Kensington.

Now Foxtons is demanding a minimum of £300,000 in damages from Mr Hassell and Mr Andrew, a co-director and shareholder of the new firm, who is also the chief executive of a boutique wealth management company.

Mr Hassell today admitted he was paying “the maximum possible price” for his “stupid” actions. He said: “I did something very stupid, and I have been made to pay the maximum possible price, financially and emotionally. I regret what I did. All I care about is running a good business.”

In papers filed at the High Court, Foxtons accuses the couple of stealing “large amounts” of information relating to 2,500 clients, including the addresses of properties, landlords' bank and contact details, rental figures, fees charged and start and end dates for tenancies.

The estate agency chain spends more than £3 million a year on its “highly sensitive and valuable” client database, which it says is its “most important tool” for generating revenue.

A 19-page writ claims Mr Hassell secretly copied huge tracts from the database in the months before he quit. Print-outs were later seized during a court-ordered raid on Draker's premises 200 yards from Mr Hassell's former office in Sloane Square.

Mr Andrew, 37, described in court papers as Mr Hassell's “husband and business partner”, would have known the information was confidential and conspired to use it steal Foxtons' business, the papers state.

He said the couple are now in the final stages of negotiations with Foxtons to reach an out-of-court settlement. “We are trying to settle so it does not have to go to court,” he said.

“We regret what has happened. We regret that Tim's friends at Foxtons can't really speak to him any more. We regret we have upset Foxtons, and regret the costs on our side. It is going to be damaging financially to the company.”

In July, Draker allegedly emailed at least 31 landlords on the database, announcing the new company in competition with Foxtons and touting for their business.

Foxtons claims Mr Hassell has so far admitted obtaining the business of one its landlords, a Mr L Neumann, to the value of nearly £2,000, and it believes Draker has many more “poached” clients on its books.

Foxtons is suing Mr Hassell, Mr Andrew and Draked for alleged infringements, including breach of contract and confidence, procurement, conspiracy and breach of copyright.

A senior figure at a London agency, said: “A client list like that is worth a hell of a lot of money — certainly many hundreds of thousands initially, and in the long run absolutely millions as lettings is a repeat business. An agency would take the theft of a client database extremely seriously, as it spends years building it up.”

A spokesman for Foxtons said: “Because we are in the legal process at the moment it is not appropriate to comment until it is concluded.”

mroli

I dunno - is the relevance because the person stole the info (allegedly) and used it to set it up with this other fella who happened to be his partner?

Generally I think that you have a point - I don't think this is the best example however...

finchy

The Guardian had a headline the other day "Only 1.6% of Britons admit to being gay."

Is that homophobic?

Headhuunter

Yes I saw that and noticed the barrage of comments after it. Completely irrelevant that the couple is gay and not worth mentioning.

This (below) also caused controversy in my local area. The News Shopper, a local paper owned by a major US publishing firm awarded star letter status to a generally homophobic rant from one of its readers. Subsequently a local Labour councillor praised the paper for doing it! Absolutely disgusting...

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/lewgr ... iety_work/

There was lots of discussion on the local blog site

http://brockleycentral.blogspot.com/201 ... ppers.html

Whilst I admit that people have a right to express themselves, there was no reason to award the letter "star" status or for the councillor to support the paper.

verylonglegs

Something that struck me as similiar was a story last week about someone who was convicted for grooming kids through facebook and bebo. I heard it on at least 4 different radio stations or programs and they all began 'A postman from...' and it left me wondering as to the relevance of his job, why did they need to mention he was a postman?

rick_chasey

verylonglegs wrote:

Something that struck me as similiar was a story last week about someone who was convicted for grooming kids through facebook and bebo. I heard it on at least 4 different radio stations or programs and they all began 'A postman from...' and it left me wondering as to the relevance of his job, why did they need to mention he was a postman?

People are regularly defined by their profession.

IronHorse100

It makes sense to me that the story mentions that they're gay. It needs to make clear the intended meaning of 'partner' in this context (personal rather than business). Don't see it as particularly homophobic. Whether the word gay needs to be used in the title is arguable though.

wheezee

Totally gratuitous introduction of their sexual orientation. What if they were heterosexual unmarried partners?

Try swapping "gay" for "black" and see how it reads.

Homophobic without a doubt.

Chip \'oyler

Aren't 67% of journalists bi-curious?

Anonymous

Chip \'oyler wrote:

Aren't 67% of journalists bi-curious?

Only the gay journalists, though.

softlad

spen666 wrote:

A newspaper today is carrying the story below.

After reading the story, can you please explain to me the relevance of the sexual orientation of the couple being sued?

Or have I read it wrong and the newspaper mean they are gay as in happy?

the fact that they are gay is relevant in the context of the fact that the 'couple' are also business partners in the new firm - but as usual, the tabloid treatment is bordering on the salacious....

simonaspinall

What newspaper was this in?

Headhuunter

simonaspinall wrote:

What newspaper was this in?

The Evening Standard. It used to be (still is?) a sister paper of the Daily Mail

spen666

simonaspinall wrote:

What newspaper was this in?

For the purpose of this debate, it is irrelevant what paper it was in. The issue is the use of the headline, not what people think of the particular paper

spen666

Headhuunter wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

What newspaper was this in?

The Evening Standard. It used to be (still is?) a sister paper of the Daily Mail

The two peprse are not connected now. One is owned by associate newspapers, one owned by a Russian

softlad

spen666 wrote:

One is owned by associate newspapers, one owned by a Russian

is the owner's nationality relevant to this discussion..?? I could argue that in defining him by his nationality, you are being discriminatory......

Ollieda

softlad wrote:

spen666 wrote:

A newspaper today is carrying the story below.

After reading the story, can you please explain to me the relevance of the sexual orientation of the couple being sued?

Or have I read it wrong and the newspaper mean they are gay as in happy?

the fact that they are gay is relevant in the context of the fact that the 'couple' are also business partners in the new firm - but as usual, the tabloid treatment is bordering on the salacious....

How else are they going to put it.

"Foxtons sues two partners who stole database to poach clients for new agency" - suggests that two of the partners (suggestion that they are both business partners which is wrong)from foxtons have teamed up and stolen the database

"Foxtons sues couple who stole database to poach clients for new agency" - for the vast majority of the public "couple" suggests male and female, it may not be right we automatically make that assumption but we do!

"Foxtons sues gay couple who stole database to poach clients for new agency" - it may use a word you don't like but but its short and gives the jist of the story correctly and makes you want to read more - something a headline is ment to do.

I agree sometimes it seems pointless to say someones sexual orientation, colour, ocupation but it does aid the description. There was a report in the local paper titled something along the lines of "Cyclist steals Television" doesn't really help with the rep that cyclists get in the media and it seems a little bit of an odd title, however I know just from the headline what the story basically is - a chap on a bike who nicked a TV, and curiosuty gets the better of me so I read the article - the headline has done its job

softlad

it wasn't the headline I was thinking about - it was the gratuitous and overly-sensational 'gay lover' reference in the first sentence.

Like I said, the fact that they are gay probably is worth mentioning in order to explain the story clearly, but it's not like they are doing this *because* they are gay.....

Ollieda

sorry softlad, a bit of bad quoting on my behalf, i was agreeing with you and adding to the argument