Should Andy Gray have been sacked?

hmbadger

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?

But the words are part of the abuse of power. That's the whole point. It betrays a set of attitudes that have affects far beyond a bit of offence over a few words.

rhext

hmbadger wrote:

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?

But the words are part of the abuse of power. That's the whole point. It betrays a set of attitudes that have affects far beyond a bit of offence over a few words.

+1. The phrase "political correctness gone mad" completely ignores the power of words to influence actions. I prefer "the pen is mightier than the sword". Hitler's campaign rallies were just 'a few words'..... (is it still Godwin's law if you don't direct it at other participants in a forum thread?)

shm_uk

Iron Man vs Iron Woman.
One's a superhero, the other's an order.

(I won't bother applying to work for Sky anytime in the future)

londonlivvy

IMO the microphone incident was blatantly sexist and certainly felt like harassment to me. In comment with most women, I suspect, I've had a wide range of sexist / bullying behaviour in my career and we have to put up with it, or get a reputation within your industry as being a complainer. But just because we put up with it in public doesn't mean a) offence wasn't taken b) offence wasn't meant c) a complaint wasn't made internally.

If you you work for a company who're in the public eye and obliged to set an example of adult, appropriate, behaviour, then you have to expect that they'll at least consider internal complaints.

davmaggs

rhext wrote:

+1. The phrase "political correctness gone mad" completely ignores the power of words to influence actions. I prefer "the pen is mightier than the sword". Hitler's campaign rallies were just 'a few words'..... (is it still Godwin's law if you don't direct it at other participants in a forum thread?)

yes, it is Godwin's law. Crass office behaviour doesn't lead to mass murder and trying to draw a link is silly.

Gets back to my point about those who think that unless they stamp on every crass wisecrack on behalf of others then grown adults will collapse (or riot) paralysed with trauma.

Would you ban books to avoid offence or to prevent demonstrations by people who were likely to be offended?

notsoblue

davmaggs wrote:

Would you ban books to avoid offence or to prevent demonstrations by people who were likely to be offended?

Is this really about people getting offended though? I would have thought its more about it being appalling PR for Sky.

rhext

davmaggs wrote:

rhext wrote:

+1. The phrase "political correctness gone mad" completely ignores the power of words to influence actions. I prefer "the pen is mightier than the sword". Hitler's campaign rallies were just 'a few words'..... (is it still Godwin's law if you don't direct it at other participants in a forum thread?)

yes, it is Godwin's law. Crass office behaviour doesn't lead to mass murder and trying to draw a link is silly.

Gets back to my point about those who think that unless they stamp on every crass wisecrack on behalf of others then grown adults will collapse (or riot) paralysed with trauma.

Would you ban books to avoid offence or to prevent demonstrations by people who were likely to be offended?

I wouldn't wish to imply that crass office behaviour leads to mass murder. My contention is that crass office behaviour can help perpetuate actual discrimination if not dealt with effectively. Words can be weapons and my example was intended to illustrate quite how powerful those weapons can be.

I don't actually take offence at his remarks or his behaviour. But if I ran an organisation like Sky I'd still sack him because I'd operate a zero tolerance policy towards discrimination in the workplace.

If he wants to make those comments on Speakers corner, more power to his elbow: I don't care how many people he offends. If he wants to go on tour as a comedian, good luck to him. I'd be the last to ban his book, however mysogenistic. But when he's employed in a position of authority by a company, when he's on their time, he's speaking on their behalf. If Sky didn't act they'd effectively be associating their corporate voice with his views: even if his behaviour wasn't extreme enough to qualify as sexual harrassment and therefore leave them in breach of the law if they didn't act, I still think they did the right thing.

For me, this is not a question of freedom of speech, more a question of whether organisations are able to say 'the views you express are incompatible with the role in which we employ you, therefore you can no longer work for us'. You asked me whether I'd burn books which caused offence: so let me ask you whether you'd allow a member of the Ku Klux Klan to run your recruitment office?

Clever Pun

trying to find a good vid of Petey the sexual harrasment panda and failing... this makes me a sad panda

Nik Cube

I don't understanding the fuss i thought it was amazing that the borish scot had the job in the first place