Should Andy Gray have been sacked?
Comments
-
I am told I have to maintain a diplomatic scilence on this issue. Being female and a football referee, I can't say too much.
However I do not believe the comments made were made in jest. I have in 8 years of refereeing heard numerous jokes about women in football, many from good friends of mine who are also referees, but that was banter. The manner in which the Keys and Gray comments were made, were to me, not made as a joke and were boardline sinister.Officers don't run, it's undignified and panics the men0 -
A picture doing the rounds.FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees
I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!0 -
In all seriousness, she must be pretty tough mentally to rise to that level. I imagine she will have had to endure pretty constant abuse from the terraces.
That and be good at the job. The one major decision she had to make, she got spot on.FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees
I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!0 -
-
I reckon her groceries must be off by now. Sainsbury's have been using orange bags for at least 3 years...0
-
Clearly, she's still waiting for the other chap to finish the dusting before she can get on with the housework0
-
Top Gear was on last night and they made some 'hilarious' joke about Liverpudlians love of crime by showing a Porsche on bricks.....it was actually 'on air' too. Is that a sacking offence?0
-
Sewinman wrote:Top Gear was on last night and they made some 'hilarious' joke about Liverpudlians love of crime by showing a Porsche on bricks.....it was actually 'on air' too. Is that a sacking offence?
The very act of making Top Gear in the first place should be a sacking offence IMHO!0 -
Greg66 wrote:[There's two aspects to this as I see it. First, the personal view. For all I care, Andy Gray can be the world's biggest misogynist, but as long as he keeps his views to himself and his equally misogynistic mates, and it doesn't interfere with his ability to do his so-called "job", I could not really care less. I don't subscribe to the need for thought police.
Secondly, publicising that view. Now you can make the "off-air" argument all day long, but these blokes know that they are surrounded by mikes and cameras all day long. Everything they say can be recorded and on youtube inside a minute. There's on air, off air, and in private. If you're stupid enough to repeat what you know is a generally unacceptable view other than in private, you only have yourself to blame for the consequences. Saying "but it was all a joke" doesn't wash these days; if you want to joke about something like that, do it in private.
None of this excludes the possibility that there's a mountain of this material that is routinely ignored, and that for whatever reason Gray has pissed someone off enough to cause them to dig some stuff out and publicise it at his expense, but nor does it excuse Gray, or give him much of a leg to stand on right now.
this, this and thrice this.
What was said and its intonation is almost irrelevant. Given his salary/fee, maybe his *professionalism* should have started when he left his front door. And I dont give a monkey's about footy.0 -
Sewinman wrote:Top Gear was on last night and they made some 'hilarious' joke about Liverpudlians love of crime by showing a Porsche on bricks.....it was actually 'on air' too. Is that a sacking offence?
Of course it's not
Don't be an idiot“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Clever Pun wrote:My point albeit it lazy, was that generalising it what gets us into this mess
No you were insulting me for the sake of being rude and that's pathetic.
tl;dr
bzzzzzzzzt wrong
you said all british reserved so I did something unreserved not aimed at you and you should know that, I expect better.Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
TailWindHome wrote:Sewinman wrote:Top Gear was on last night and they made some 'hilarious' joke about Liverpudlians love of crime by showing a Porsche on bricks.....it was actually 'on air' too. Is that a sacking offence?
Of course it's not
Don't be an idiot
Care to elaborate or are you just happy to fire out some abuse?0 -
Sewinman wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Sewinman wrote:Top Gear was on last night and they made some 'hilarious' joke about Liverpudlians love of crime by showing a Porsche on bricks.....it was actually 'on air' too. Is that a sacking offence?
Of course it's not
Don't be an idiot
Care to elaborate or are you just happy to fire out some abuse?
Well it was a pretty silly question, you couldn't have been serious. Right?0 -
God, what a patronising bunch - I was mulling over why it is acceptable to trip out hackneyed bigotry about Liverpudlians on air, but not acceptable to make sexist jokes whilst off it.0
-
Sewinman wrote:God, what a patronising bunch - I was mulling over why it is acceptable to trip out hackneyed bigotry about Liverpudlians on air, but not acceptable to make sexist jokes whilst off it.
so you're saying all caricature jokes are out of bounds and that's in line with asking a woman colleague to tuck a microphone in your pants for you?Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:God, what a patronising bunch - I was mulling over why it is acceptable to trip out hackneyed bigotry about Liverpudlians on air, but not acceptable to make sexist jokes whilst off it.
so you're saying all caricature jokes are out of bounds and that's in line with asking a woman colleague to tuck a microphone in your pants for you?
Nope, I not saying that. I am asking that. Both were jokes that could be found offensive, how come one leads to someone being fired and the other does not? I am interested in what people see as the difference.0 -
Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:God, what a patronising bunch - I was mulling over why it is acceptable to trip out hackneyed bigotry about Liverpudlians on air, but not acceptable to make sexist jokes whilst off it.
so you're saying all caricature jokes are out of bounds and that's in line with asking a woman colleague to tuck a microphone in your pants for you?
Hear, hear...0 -
I think there's a couple of facts gone adrift from this debate:
1) He wasn't sacked for the sexist 'joke', he was sacked for sexual harrassment.
2) While the 'microphone down the pants' comment could have been a bit of harmless banter between consenting adults if the woman concerned was a consenting adult, it could also have been blatant sexual harrassment. Presumably, Sky's internal investigation, which would have had access to far more facts about the incident than we do, came to the conclusion that it was the latter!0 -
rhext wrote:I think there's a couple of facts gone adrift from this debate:
1) He wasn't sacked for the sexist 'joke', he was sacked for sexual harrassment.
2) While the 'microphone down the pants' comment could have been a bit of harmless banter between consenting adults if the woman concerned was a consenting adult, it could also have been blatant sexual harrassment. Presumably, Sky's internal investigation, which would have had access to far more facts about the incident than we do, came to the conclusion that it was the latter!
A Sky statement read: 'Sky Sports has terminated its contract with Andy Gray. The decision which is effective immediately was made in response to new evidence of unacceptable and offensive behaviour.
'The new evidence relating to an off-air incident that took place in December 2010 came to light after Andy Gray had already been subjected to disciplinary action for his comments of 22 January 2011.'
So he got sacked for the 'tuck it in' comment.0 -
No he should not have been sacked.
See what Clarkson said?
The team from Top Gear, who won the prize for most popular factual programme, initially made light of the issue. Asked backstage if he felt there were enough women on Top Gear, presenter Jeremy Clarkson quipped: "Who do you think tucks our microphone cables in?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12296317
8)0 -
This isn't comment on the Sky case.
Seems to be a lot of people on here getting offended on behalf of other groups of people, and then seeking to punish people. I'm not talking about bullying or harrassment, but instead being a bit inapprorpiate and a fool being enough to be condemned as a monster.
The UK seems to be sliding into a situtation whereby adults are being infantalised. We tell children to move on if someone is being annoying, but now adults are demanding retribution simply for words (again, I'm not talking about the abuse of power).
This leads to the situation of millions of people happily watch a TV show and 50 letters are enough to get an enquiry. We have the odd situation whereby some religious types are offended by tennants of science, or worse offended by how other people chose to live.
Do we want to get to the point where being "offended" is at the discretion of the victim and that their world view or thin skin trumps wider society?0 -
Sexism in football... it's a Gray areaPurveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:God, what a patronising bunch - I was mulling over why it is acceptable to trip out hackneyed bigotry about Liverpudlians on air, but not acceptable to make sexist jokes whilst off it.
so you're saying all caricature jokes are out of bounds and that's in line with asking a woman colleague to tuck a microphone in your pants for you?
Nope, I not saying that. I am asking that. Both were jokes that could be found offensive, how come one leads to someone being fired and the other does not? I am interested in what people see as the difference.
one is sexual harassment in the workplace, she had no choice about being there
one is a light entertainment show trying to entertain.. akin to watching comedy (you're paying to watch it)
I really see no comparison..Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:God, what a patronising bunch - I was mulling over why it is acceptable to trip out hackneyed bigotry about Liverpudlians on air, but not acceptable to make sexist jokes whilst off it.
so you're saying all caricature jokes are out of bounds and that's in line with asking a woman colleague to tuck a microphone in your pants for you?
Nope, I not saying that. I am asking that. Both were jokes that could be found offensive, how come one leads to someone being fired and the other does not? I am interested in what people see as the difference.
one is sexual harassment in the workplace, she had no choice about being there
one is a light entertainment show trying to entertain.. akin to watching comedy (you're paying to watch it)
I really see no comparison..
I see that difference, but she made no complaint and presumably did not take offence, on the other hand a number of people have complained about the scoucer bashing.
Having said that, I don't mind seeing the back of those two..as long as they dont replace them with women!0 -
Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:God, what a patronising bunch - I was mulling over why it is acceptable to trip out hackneyed bigotry about Liverpudlians on air, but not acceptable to make sexist jokes whilst off it.
so you're saying all caricature jokes are out of bounds and that's in line with asking a woman colleague to tuck a microphone in your pants for you?
Nope, I not saying that. I am asking that. Both were jokes that could be found offensive, how come one leads to someone being fired and the other does not? I am interested in what people see as the difference.
one is sexual harassment in the workplace, she had no choice about being there
one is a light entertainment show trying to entertain.. akin to watching comedy (you're paying to watch it)
I really see no comparison..
I see that difference, but she made no complaint and presumably did not take offence, on the other hand a number of people have complained about the scoucer bashing.
Having said that, I don't mind seeing the back of those two..as long as they dont replace them with women!
How do you know she made no complaint, and why would you presume she didn't take offence?0 -
Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:God, what a patronising bunch - I was mulling over why it is acceptable to trip out hackneyed bigotry about Liverpudlians on air, but not acceptable to make sexist jokes whilst off it.
so you're saying all caricature jokes are out of bounds and that's in line with asking a woman colleague to tuck a microphone in your pants for you?
Nope, I not saying that. I am asking that. Both were jokes that could be found offensive, how come one leads to someone being fired and the other does not? I am interested in what people see as the difference.
one is sexual harassment in the workplace, she had no choice about being there
one is a light entertainment show trying to entertain.. akin to watching comedy (you're paying to watch it)
I really see no comparison..
I see that difference, but she made no complaint and presumably did not take offence, on the other hand a number of people have complained about the scoucer bashing.
Having said that, I don't mind seeing the back of those two..as long as they dont replace them with women!
The opinions you are expressing are those of an idiot.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
rhext wrote:Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:God, what a patronising bunch - I was mulling over why it is acceptable to trip out hackneyed bigotry about Liverpudlians on air, but not acceptable to make sexist jokes whilst off it.
so you're saying all caricature jokes are out of bounds and that's in line with asking a woman colleague to tuck a microphone in your pants for you?
Nope, I not saying that. I am asking that. Both were jokes that could be found offensive, how come one leads to someone being fired and the other does not? I am interested in what people see as the difference.
one is sexual harassment in the workplace, she had no choice about being there
one is a light entertainment show trying to entertain.. akin to watching comedy (you're paying to watch it)
I really see no comparison..
I see that difference, but she made no complaint and presumably did not take offence, on the other hand a number of people have complained about the scoucer bashing.
Having said that, I don't mind seeing the back of those two..as long as they dont replace them with women!
How do you know she made no complaint, and why would you presume she didn't take offence?
I thought the chain of events made it fairly clear that the clip had been dragged up due to the lineswoman event and was not part of any previous disciplinary. Maybe she did take offence, you are right - I don't know.
TWH - your attitude is not very constructive, I am merely discussing a scenario with no particularly firm view on it one way or the other....I wanted to listen to others opinions - hence my asking the question in the first place. I hope you don't behave this way in the work place.0 -
davmaggs wrote:This isn't comment on the Sky case.
Seems to be a lot of people on here getting offended on behalf of other groups of people, and then seeking to punish people. I'm not talking about bullying or harrassment, but instead being a bit inapprorpiate and a fool being enough to be condemned as a monster.
The UK seems to be sliding into a situtation whereby adults are being infantalised. We tell children to move on if someone is being annoying, but now adults are demanding retribution simply for words (again, I'm not talking about the abuse of power).
This leads to the situation of millions of people happily watch a TV show and 50 letters are enough to get an enquiry. We have the odd situation whereby some religious types are offended by tennants of science, or worse offended by how other people chose to live.
Do we want to get to the point where being "offended" is at the discretion of the victim and that their world view or thin skin trumps wider society?
It's a fine line: I don't think that anyone has a right not to be offended. But I also think that everyone has a right not to be discriminated against. And language and presentation are such powerful tools for influencing behaviour that sometimes getting cultural change through requires that trivial-seeming transgressions are dealt with robustly.
There are some sectors of society who have historically had a raw deal, and a big feature of that discrimination is the language used to identify, stereotype and deride them. As a society, we decide that such discrimination is unacceptable and start to stamp it out. Progress is slow and painful, and there are a lot of people left very sensitive. Public transgressions are going to get spotted and jumped on. Bottom line is that if you're working in an industry where sexism is rampant (and it's difficult to think of an industry which is more discriminatory against women than football...), but which is starting to take steps to do something about it, if you're in a prominent position you can expect to get dealt with particularly harshly if you're seen to be perpetuating the attitudes that they're trying to change.
Anyone think that the sentences handed out to MPs are a little harsh for the sums of money actually involved in their fraudulent activity?0 -
Let's all calm down and get some new T-Shirts for the weekend...
0 -
Sewinman wrote:rhext wrote:Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Sewinman wrote:God, what a patronising bunch - I was mulling over why it is acceptable to trip out hackneyed bigotry about Liverpudlians on air, but not acceptable to make sexist jokes whilst off it.
so you're saying all caricature jokes are out of bounds and that's in line with asking a woman colleague to tuck a microphone in your pants for you?
Nope, I not saying that. I am asking that. Both were jokes that could be found offensive, how come one leads to someone being fired and the other does not? I am interested in what people see as the difference.
one is sexual harassment in the workplace, she had no choice about being there
one is a light entertainment show trying to entertain.. akin to watching comedy (you're paying to watch it)
I really see no comparison..
I see that difference, but she made no complaint and presumably did not take offence, on the other hand a number of people have complained about the scoucer bashing.
Having said that, I don't mind seeing the back of those two..as long as they dont replace them with women!
How do you know she made no complaint, and why would you presume she didn't take offence?
I thought the chain of events made it fairly clear that the clip had been dragged up due to the lineswoman event and was not part of any previous discilinary. Maybe she did take offence, you are right - I don't know.
TWH - your attitude is not very constructive, I am merely discussing a scenario with no particularly firm view on it one way or the other....I wanted to listen to others opinions - hence my asking the question in the first place. I hope you don't behave this way in the work place.
The 'chain of events' thing is a fair point. But we don't really know. It could have already been the subject of an internal investigation, it could be that a junior technician, humiliated by his comment, saw an opportunity to get something done about it. And it could be a third party saw his/her chance to make a point. I'd like to think that Sky would have at least spoken to the recipient of the microphone humour and asked how she felt about it.
FWIW, if I made a 'joke' like that at work, I'd fully expect to get disciplined for it. I don't make jokes like that at work![/i]0
