Manx Radio

[manxman1980]

6 hours ago, Gladys said:

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

It is an interesting thought experiment though.

6 hours ago, Gladys said:

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 example I gave simply shows that you can be exonerated by an external body but still be found to have breached your contract by your employer. 

Obviously, we do not have the full details but if you as an employee of an organisation lost an income stream because of something you said or did that then placed the employer in the midst of a public controversy how might a reasonable employer act?

There is no 'correct' answer.  There would be a spectrum of reasonable responses that an employment tribunal would have to consider.

6 hours ago, Gladys said:

The status of freelancers is not that clear as I think you pointed out in the Myers Report. 

Indeed.  The burden of proof would be on the freelancer initially to prove that they were an employee though.

The BHS v Burchell is an interesting case though.

[manxman1980]

6 hours ago, woolley said:

I have personally witnessed raids on the town shopping centre by gangs of Asians with sticks and knives.

Are you forgetting that not long ago their were gangs of white youths roaming the streets of Willaston with knives and trying to pick fights with other groups?

Take the rose tinted glasses off.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

58 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Are you forgetting that not long ago their were gangs of white youths roaming the streets of Willaston with knives and trying to pick fights with other groups?

Take the rose tinted glasses off.

Eh? That's a bizarre comparison .

 

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

It is an interesting thought experiment though.

The example I gave simply shows that you can be exonerated by an external body but still be found to have breached your contract by your employer. 

Obviously, we do not have the full details but if you as an employee of an organisation lost an income stream because of something you said or did that then placed the employer in the midst of a public controversy how might a reasonable employer act?

There is no 'correct' answer.  There would be a spectrum of reasonable responses that an employment tribunal would have to consider.

Indeed.  The burden of proof would be on the freelancer initially to prove that they were an employee though.

The BHS v Burchell is an interesting case though.

Stu could comfortably pull down Manx Radio's pants if they don't reinstate him.

 

[WTF]

19 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

You hear about these no go areas, but no one ever says where exactly they are. 

but the no go areas depends on who/what you are,  they aren't no go areas for everyone.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

It is an interesting thought experiment though.

The example I gave simply shows that you can be exonerated by an external body but still be found to have breached your contract by your employer. 

Obviously, we do not have the full details but if you as an employee of an organisation lost an income stream because of something you said or did that then placed the employer in the midst of a public controversy how might a reasonable employer act?

There is no 'correct' answer.  There would be a spectrum of reasonable responses that an employment tribunal would have to consider.

Indeed.  The burden of proof would be on the freelancer initially to prove that they were an employee though.

The BHS v Burchell is an interesting case though.

Without wanting to prolong, the police finding insufficient evidence is not an exoneration; the police are not an adjudicating body, they are enforcers and investigators who will weigh the evidence they have against the likelihood of getting the matter past the AG's office (or CPS in the UK) for a prosecution.  

The income stream has not been lost, just moved to another programme.  Also, a more cynical view may be that the "controversy" may actually increase listenership. 

All hypothetical, as we don't  have the detail. 

 

[manxman1980]

@Gladys

Even had the case I referred to gone before court and the person found not guilty then the employer could still dismiss and the dismissal deemed to be fair.  If you are interested I can find some cases where that actually happened.

In Stu's case you may be right but the position is not as straightforward as some wish to portray.   I am sure Stu and MR will be having ongoing talks about what happens next.

[manxman34]

The man responsible for flying a banner with White Lives Matter over Burnley football ground was said by police not to have committed a criminal offence. Nevertheless he has been sacked from his welding job, and his girlfriend who has expressed similar views on social media has been sacked also. Their employers find their views abhorrent, and that continuing to employ such people brings their companies into disrepute. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

 

[NoTail]

11 minutes ago, manxman34 said:

The man responsible for flying a banner with White Lives Matter over Burnley football ground was said by police not to have committed a criminal offence. Nevertheless he has been sacked from his welding job, and his girlfriend who has expressed similar views on social media has been sacked also. Their employers find their views abhorrent, and that continuing to employ such people brings their companies into disrepute. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

 

But Stu did not say anything like that. He even supported the black lives matter campaign.  He was questioning the protest in the IOM.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

9 minutes ago, NoTail said:

But Stu did not say anything like that. He even supported the black lives matter campaign.  He was questioning the protest in the IOM.

Correct.  And challenged the concept that he has been more privileged than that tool Jordan.

[WTF]

48 minutes ago, manxman34 said:

The man responsible for flying a banner with White Lives Matter over Burnley football ground was said by police not to have committed a criminal offence. Nevertheless he has been sacked from his welding job, and his girlfriend who has expressed similar views on social media has been sacked also. Their employers find their views abhorrent, and that continuing to employ such people brings their companies into disrepute. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

 

er no, their employers took the easy route of sacking them so they could avoid any possible backlash from dumb members of the public and pretend like they cared , if everybody that ever said or agreed with anything controversial got sacked there'd be nobody in a job.  the thought police have arrived and they are the dumb public.

Edited June 25, 2020 by WTF

[gettafa]

2 hours ago, WTF said:

but the no go areas depends on who/what you are,  they aren't no go areas for everyone.

No go area for police? It's frightening stuff and I have to say that I very much felt for these two guys.

It 

And apparently Brixton was a serious no go area last night, but judging by the null reports no one told the BBC

Edited June 25, 2020 by gettafa

[Manximus Aururaneus]

On 6/20/2020 at 1:09 PM, Manximus Aururaneus said:

What is the official title of his show?

Is there a 'Tag-Line' for it?

That could be significant.

I posted this last week - The point I was making is that Stu's position with the station may largely depend on what agreement he had with them as to the 'aims' of the show.

If, for example, the show description (private or public) had described the show as 'a sometimes controversial and in-depth examination of the facts behind the headlines' or something similar then it would be difficult for the station to take action against someone for complying with the agreed party line. If the station wanted or agreed to a controversial close to the knuckle show to attract interest then they cannot complain if the audience is then largely split afterwards.

It is all a pre-planned and executed storm in a teacup as far as I can see. I still cannot understand BLM's approach of trying to bring harmony and racial understanding from a starting point of upsetting 50% of the audience - seems a pretty stupid policy to me. It is not a viable route to the elimination of racism.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Manximus Aururaneus

[woolley]

9 hours ago, Kopek said:

Reposted from the BLM thread at Woolys suggestion.

Obviously has more context here, but just to be clear, Kopek, I wasn't having a go. I always try to afford everyone the courtesy they deserve. It was just that I'd replied to a Manx Radio matter on the BLM thread and then vice versa within a few minutes. It seemed a bit parallel universe.

[gettafa]

  

29 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

I posted this last week - The point I was making is that Stu's position with the station may largely depend on what agreement he had with them as to the 'aims' of the show.

If, for example, the show description (private or public) had described the show as 'a sometimes controversial and in-depth examination of the facts behind the headlines' or something similar then it would be difficult for the station to take action against someone for complying with the agreed party line. If the station wanted or agreed to a controversial close to the knuckle show to attract interest then they cannot complain if the audience is then largely split afterwards.

It is all a pre-planned and executed storm in a teacup as far as I can see. I still cannot understand BLM's approach of trying to bring harmony and racial understanding from a starting point of upsetting 50% of the audience - seems a pretty stupid policy to me. It is not a viable route to the elimination of racism.

 

As an occasional listener to the show, I can confirm that there were indeed controversies and ructions. Eric being banned from getting his buggy on the bus. That was a hot, hot, hot topic.

Then Quirky and one or two others, running through the cars they owned to go and throw some moves at the girls in Castletwon at the 370 Disco (with no other than future Chief Minister, Hovis Brown spinning the discs).

It was 'close to the knuckle' stuff

And some of the high jinks that were got up to with the CB radios.

It was rebel stuff.

To be fair - and I mean no disrespect - it was rather like a gang of hyped-up party goers gate-crashing a pensioners party. Ripping the Frank Sinatra off the Decca Record player and throwing on some N.W.A.

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by gettafa