woolley Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, manxman1980 said: Take the rose tinted glasses off. I fear that you and those of like mind are the ones with those. I can assure you that nothing on the Island equates to events that have gone on elsewhere either in scale or motivation. Edited June 25, 2020 by woolley 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 2 hours 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. A good case for an unfair dismissal claim, I would say. If not then the implications are Orwellian. Either you agree with us or you can't work. What next? The sack if you refuse to "take a knee"? Unless of course they have been sacked because of the lockdown and the press are twisting it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, gettafa said: And apparently Brixton was a serious no go area last night, but judging by the null reports no one told the BBC Nothing new there then. They never report such things and that's why we have people on the Isle of Man and other 99% white areas saying: "Problems? What problems?" Edited June 25, 2020 by woolley 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 It is now reported. Something about a street party that the police broke up. Those nasty police. The Home Secretary made a statement and I suppose the BBC had to report something. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 14 minutes ago, gettafa said: It is now reported. Something about a street party that the police broke up. Those nasty police. The Home Secretary made a statement and I suppose the BBC had to report something. Indeed. 12 hours later after other media started to make them look stupid. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53176472 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 (edited) 12 hours 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. Wasn't this radio genre new to MR? Presumably brought in by the new'ish Controller of Programming and Content? Would be interesting to hear his view on this now that CC have declared that there's been no contravention of their regs? ETA: The reason why I mention this is that the Stu Peters issue is but one part of MR programming changes that have seemingly backfired. MR is not and never will be anything more than a village radio show. Trying to imitate or replicate programming from other larger operators elsewhere has shown how out of it's depth MR is. Edited June 25, 2020 by Andy Onchan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 44 minutes ago, woolley said: A good case for an unfair dismissal claim, I would say. If not then the implications are Orwellian. Either you agree with us or you can't work. What next? The sack if you refuse to "take a knee"? Unless of course they have been sacked because of the lockdown and the press are twisting it. I know we all love a slippery slope argument around here, but I think we can both agree there's a gulf between "Sacked for being a racist ninny on social media" and "Sacked for not performing a particular protest-linked action" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 53 minutes ago, woolley said: A good case for an unfair dismissal claim, I would say. If not then the implications are Orwellian. Either you agree with us or you can't work. What next? The sack if you refuse to "take a knee"? Unless of course they have been sacked because of the lockdown and the press are twisting it. An employer can dismiss for "some other substantial reason" which can be as simple as you and the Business owner cannot get along. It is a great catch all and one I always recommend having in reserve should you dismiss anyone from your employ. Why would a business want to be associated with the racist actions of those fools especially if the communities and customers which they serve are also a mixture of races and cultures? Once the names and Facebook profiles got into the media there was no way they were going to keep their jobs unless of course the business owners shared their views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 On 6/24/2020 at 11:29 AM, TheTeapot said: You hear about these no go areas, but no one ever says where exactly they are. your house... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 3 hours 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. Hopefully the couple will sue their respective employers then 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 1 hour ago, woolley said: Nothing new there then. They never report such things and that's why we have people on the Isle of Man and other 99% white areas saying: "Problems? What problems?" Pathetic. In Moss Side, Manchester's equivalent of Brixton, on Sunday a very similar thing happened and the police decided not to intervene. As it prompted a shooting that left two dead perhaps the police made the wrong decision. But as even Brixton, famous for it's appalling riots in the eighties, is not a no-go area the police responded with the inevitable results. So which force got it right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 14 minutes ago, Neil Down said: Hopefully the couple will sue their respective employers then For what? As I have said above employers have more freedom than you might imagine in these cases. As long as the companies have followed the ACAS guides on disciplinary proceedings and their own contractual procedures then the chances are that no Employment Tribunal would uphold a claim for wrongful or unfair dismissal. Maybe you will argue that the Human Rights Act gives people the freedom of speech and the right to privacy. That is fine but these two idiots have chucked their right to a private life away by airing their views in public. Don't forget that companies also have rights under that legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dog's Dangly Bits Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 41 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: An employer can dismiss for "some other substantial reason" which can be as simple as you and the Business owner cannot get along. It is a great catch all and one I always recommend having in reserve should you dismiss anyone from your employ. That never stands up when challenged at an appeal. That situation is simple. The owner pays you off. You get sacked just because "you dont get along with the owner" then it'll be deemed unfair dismissal assuming you were competent at your job. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 15 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: For what? As I have said above employers have more freedom than you might imagine in these cases. As long as the companies have followed the ACAS guides on disciplinary proceedings and their own contractual procedures then the chances are that no Employment Tribunal would uphold a claim for wrongful or unfair dismissal. Maybe you will argue that the Human Rights Act gives people the freedom of speech and the right to privacy. That is fine but these two idiots have chucked their right to a private life away by airing their views in public. Don't forget that companies also have rights under that legislation. So they are idiots for airing their views. I think you'll find that a tribunal will hold up their claim. You can't be sacked for airing your views. Seems like their respective employers have jumped on the "appease" bandwagon 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 56 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: That never stands up when challenged at an appeal. That situation is simple. The owner pays you off. You get sacked just because "you dont get along with the owner" then it'll be deemed unfair dismissal assuming you were competent at your job. 48 minutes ago, Neil Down said: So they are idiots for airing their views. I think you'll find that a tribunal will hold up their claim. You can't be sacked for airing your views. Seems like their respective employers have jumped on the "appease" bandwagon https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/employment/can-an-employees-offensive-use-of-twitter-justify-dismissal/ Each case will be decided on its own facts but there is one case that proves what I have been saying. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.