Manx Radio

[Sentience]

4 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

Information Notice.pdf 261.2 kB · 22 downloads

Not sure if the PDF link will work, but this is the official word. To everyone on here who has supported me, thank you sincerely. To my many detractors, have a nice day.

Nice one Stu. Very  pleased for you that common sense prevailed.

 

[Gladys]

14 minutes ago, TomTucker said:

I read the CC report as Manx Radio have been cleared of complaints against them not the presenter. That MR did not by broacasting the show incite racial tensions. 

The report does not read as an exoneration as the headlines state. 

 

The report says the comments were not racist, some may have been insensitive, but not racist.  That surely applies to the presenter who uttered them? 

Edit to add - you don't have to convince me or anyone else on here, just a Deemster and lawyers, do crack on. 

[HeliX]

Just now, Gladys said:

No, but you do say that I would agree with sacking someone even though the thing you were sacking them for was found not to contravene the code under which the employer operates.  That is a very employer-centric view and pretty right wing, nay, Thatcherite.  I don't agree with sacking anyone without very, very good reason, to that extent I am a bit of a leftie.

If you have concerns about somebody's competence  then you must follow a performance remediation plan to give them the opportunity to put matters right. 

You cant just take someone's livelihood away on a whim, and that is what it would be if MR "changed their minds". 

I don't think I said I'd agree with it, I said they're able to do so regardless of the IOMCC decision. For the record I wouldn't agree with it. But it's also not my call to make.

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, VinnieK said:

Just to play devil's advocate, would it really be contradictory or even hypocritical if, in light of all this, they decided that they didn't want to run that kind of program in the future?

I'm not suggesting that this is or should be their position, but I wouldn't see it as particularly surprising or against the grain if, although glad no rule was broken this time, MR decided that they didn't want to carry on with the whole "look out snowflakes!" style phone-in show for much longer.  

That could be an outcome.  Read the decision, there are recommendations for MR management, like a time delay for phone ins etc. , so they could make it "safer" for all concerned. 

[manxman1980]

12 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Most definitely do.  You can't support a position as an employer to get yourself off the hook with your regulator, then "change your mind" and sack the employee for the same thing.  And you think I am a right wing conservative?

Interesting suggestion, however, I am not sure that it is applicable in this case primarily because I believe that Stu is not an employee but a freelance contractor and therefore not subject to internal disciplinary proceedings.  That said....

It is not always unusual that an employer makes a bland statement regarding an investigation into an employee if an allegation becomes public.  As an example I dealt with a case where an employee was accused of committing a criminal offence during the course of their employment.  The employee was suspended pending investigation and the matter reported to the Police.  Whilst the case did not become public the employer was prepared with a statement along the lines of "The matter is being taken seriously and is currently being internally investigated.  We cannot provide further details of the investigation process".  Meanwhile, the Police then conducted their own investigation and came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence for them to prosecute.

Once the Police investigation was concluded the employer launched their own internal disciplinary proceedings and dismissed the employee for Gross Misconduct.  The employee protested that the Police had not found sufficient evidence that they had committed the office and therefore the employer could not make a finding of Gross Misconduct.  Well they did, the employee was dismissed without notice and lost their appeal.

Why?

Because a successful prosecution under criminal law requires a finding of "beyond reasonable doubt".  Employment law only requires a finding of "a reasonable belief".  You can see this in the key case of BHS v Burchell. 

I do not believe therefore that the employer would be bound by the decision of a regulator.  The decision could be that the publicity surrounding the case has brought the employers reputation into disrepute and therefore would be a potentially fair reason for dismissal.  Manx Radio could point to the withdrawal of a sponsor, the amount of press coverage which this case has received as evidence that there reputation has been damaged.

As I said though this is all hypothetical as I do not believe that Stu is an employee and is therefore unlikely to be subject to disciplinary proceedings. 

[TheTeapot]

7 minutes ago, Gladys said:

That could be an outcome.  Read the decision, there are recommendations for MR management, like a time delay for phone ins etc. , so they could make it "safer" for all concerned. 

They had to do that with Going Live, saturday morning kids TV after someone asked ASWAD 'why are you twats?'

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

They had to do that with Going Live, saturday morning kids TV after someone asked ASWAD 'why are you twats?'

I've  seen that!

[Sentience]

3 hours ago, gettafa said:

You can't just 'give someone a slot' although I am happy to be proved wrong.. There needs to be aptitude for the job, personality and a certain amount of training required. Certainly many of today's senior presenters did *ahem* discos and stuff before entering the word of broadcasting, many had a natural leaning to the job.

Anyway, we'll see.

Doing 'clubs' is indeed a good understanding of the technology used, but, it really is miles apart from being a successful radio broadcaster. Even in local radio. Believe me....been there....done that....in reverse!!

[VinnieK]

39 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The report says the comments were not racist, some may have been insensitive, but not racist.  That surely applies to the presenter who uttered them? 

 

35 minutes ago, Gladys said:

That could be an outcome.  Read the decision, there are recommendations for MR management, like a time delay for phone ins etc. , so they could make it "safer" for all concerned. 

I'd not be surprised if those both apply as much (or more) to some of the callers who came to Stu's defence (which is where the delay would come in handy) as it does to Stu himself. But the report is clear that the CC is concerned only with the question of whether it's codes have been broken, and that this doesn't necessarily have a bearing on the broadcaster's internal standards or disciplinary actions.

It's possible that MR might still decide the show fell short of their standards, either because of how it was presented or because of something more intrinsic to the nature of the show itself, and act on that decision in some way.  Again, I'm not saying they should, just that it's not unthinkable.    

Edited June 24, 2020 by VinnieK

[Gladys]

30 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Interesting suggestion, however, I am not sure that it is applicable in this case primarily because I believe that Stu is not an employee but a freelance contractor and therefore not subject to internal disciplinary proceedings.  That said....

It is not always unusual that an employer makes a bland statement regarding an investigation into an employee if an allegation becomes public.  As an example I dealt with a case where an employee was accused of committing a criminal offence during the course of their employment.  The employee was suspended pending investigation and the matter reported to the Police.  Whilst the case did not become public the employer was prepared with a statement along the lines of "The matter is being taken seriously and is currently being internally investigated.  We cannot provide further details of the investigation process".  Meanwhile, the Police then conducted their own investigation and came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence for them to prosecute.

Once the Police investigation was concluded the employer launched their own internal disciplinary proceedings and dismissed the employee for Gross Misconduct.  The employee protested that the Police had not found sufficient evidence that they had committed the office and therefore the employer could not make a finding of Gross Misconduct.  Well they did, the employee was dismissed without notice and lost their appeal.

Why?

Because a successful prosecution under criminal law requires a finding of "beyond reasonable doubt".  Employment law only requires a finding of "a reasonable belief".  You can see this in the key case of BHS v Burchell. 

I do not believe therefore that the employer would be bound by the decision of a regulator.  The decision could be that the publicity surrounding the case has brought the employers reputation into disrepute and therefore would be a potentially fair reason for dismissal.  Manx Radio could point to the withdrawal of a sponsor, the amount of press coverage which this case has received as evidence that there reputation has been damaged.

As I said though this is all hypothetical as I do not believe that Stu is an employee and is therefore unlikely to be subject to disciplinary proceedings. 

It is hypothetical for both of us, so perhaps best not pick over it here.

What I would say, though, is in the case you cite, the police found insufficient evidence to prosecute which is not the same as being found not guilty.  Whereas, MR has been found not to have breached the code and by implication surely the person who said the words would too?  There may be other factors of which we are not aware, but I would again say that if Stu is fired or in any other way unfavourably impacted for the same matters  MR may be in a sticky position.   The status of freelancers is not that clear as I think you pointed out in the Myers Report. 

[Uhtred]

42 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

They had to do that with Going Live, saturday morning kids TV after someone asked ASWAD 'why are you twats?'

Not, it must be said, an unreasonable question.

[woolley]

19 minutes ago, parchedpeas said:

Sorry, not sure I was clear and that must explain why you replied with a list of general-isms and softened your position from "no-go area" to "not no-go areas as such".  ~ I think it was Manxman1980 who used the term "no-go areas" in this thread and not me.

So, back to it: where is the place that you have family that you (and, I assume, they) deem is a "no-go" area? ~ Well, if we ignore "no-go area" because I didn't use the term, the St Mary's Ward in Oldham and those who live in more affluent areas around it is but one, possibly the most extreme example, with which I am familiar. It contains the Glodwick district, scene of the race riots of 2001, and despite attempts to integrate secondary education in Oldham as a whole, and lots of manipulative feelgood stories in the media, the communities still live segregated lives and they keep vigilance over their territory, there is no other way to portray it. I have personally witnessed raids on the town shopping centre by gangs of Asians with sticks and knives. I have a friend living in Leicester who has witnessed unrest between communities on numerous occasions. It would probably be termed low level, but the mutual hostility and suspicion endures.

You ask me if I travel and say "that it's easy to sit in the Isle of Man and believe that such reports are fanciful". Is it not also possible to ask if you travel? And if the answer is yes, then you can tell me where you've been where you've seen these "no go areas" and if the answer is no then I could easily respond that it's easy to sit in the Isle of Man and believe that such reports are true. ~ Well, again, I didn't say no-go areas BUT yes, and I have seen Islamisation going on throughout Europe. It is a worry, not for me personally because I won't be around for long enough, but the implications for the ancient civilisations of Europe are profound. I see it as an existential threat, but the intelligentsia see it differently and have cocked a deaf one to what is going on. Time will tell who was right. One of the most extreme examples I have experienced personally is Marseilles. There are parts of the city where you would never believe you are in Europe. Some find that invigorating. If you have an affinity for traditional France as I have, it is disturbing. You could be in the third world with all that it entails. There is extremism, radicalisation, crime and deprivation on a grand scale. It is estimated that 30% of young people in the city are Muslim. I link two views which I believe are evenhanded and objective: https://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2015/01/marseille-muslims-201511381851988282.html and https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2012/03/marseille-france/

My concern for Europe is encapsulated well within the National Geographic piece:

What worries some Marseillais is not the caricature of Talibanization invoked by right-wing extremists but what they see as the creeping Islamization of the city's largely working-class population—and not only those issus de l'immigration. "I think that Muslim culture is definitively taking over the lower levels of society," says Michèle Teboul, of CRIF. "There are many mixed marriages with Muslims."

"That's real integration," I say.

"That depends," says Teboul. "It depends if there is a mixture of the two cultures and not one culture gaining the upper hand over another," she says. In France, as she sees it, the institutionalization of secularism and the prevalence of political correctness have weakened the value systems in society and left people without any strong sense of tradition. "Loving your homeland, loving your country, having values— whether religious or other—has been put aside by the politically bien-pensant, and that has helped to break up families that no longer have points of reference, especially those that are underprivileged." Islam, says Teboul, offers a structure to the lives of many people who feel they are adrift. "I'm convinced of that," she says.      Wise words, I contend.

The reason I ask is simple - you either know that this place exists and you can point me to it, or you're simply repeating stuff you've heard / read on the internet and pointing at a few other places such as Oldham (last census: almost 8 out of 10 people were White British) where there are issues of poverty but where, since the mills closed, there has always been issues of poverty. ~ So take Oldham again, then. It is hugely simplistic to say - as the media inevitably will - that 80% of the population is white British. One might as well say that 82% of the UK is white and look no further. Within these totals there is massive variation by district all over the country. In St Mary's Ward in 2011, white British was 34% (down from 51% in 2001), Pakistani was 49% (up from 35% in 2001), Bangladeshi 9% and other non-white 8%. Those trends have continued in kind for a further decade. If you were one of the elderly white British minority in that district and had lived there for the past 80 years, I think you are entitled to ask what on Earth is going on in your town with a fair mind and without being the least bit racist. Here is the official profile for the ward: http://www.oldham-council.co.uk/jsna/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/St_Marys_2018.pdf

I don't expect I'll get a response. I never get a response. ~ You must be asking the wrong people. Stop writing to Tommy Robinson.

 

[woolley]

1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

Well Liverpool won 4-0 so that's something.

Even more depressing.

[woolley]

1 hour ago, HeliX said:

The MR text says they don't think the broadcasting programme code was contravened. They wouldn't have to alter that opinion to still not be happy with what was said under their banner.

So far as I know I've not called you a right wing conservative nor any other political leaning

So the only interpretation I can put on the way you are reading this is that the MR management have decided that Stu should be sacked, but thought it might be easier on them if the stuffed shirts at the CC would oblige and do the deed so that they don't have to?

[HeliX]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

So the only interpretation I can put on the way you are reading this is that the MR management have decided that Stu should be sacked, but thought it might be easier on them if the stuffed shirts at the CC would oblige and do the deed so that they don't have to?

Or that they'd rather the CC didn't reprimand MR for allowing the content to take place.
EDIT: I'm also not suggesting what they are or aren't going to do or why really, I just said that they are absolutely within their power to do so as his employer.

Edited June 24, 2020 by HeliX