Too busy getting your knickers in a twist about drunk Arsenal fans.

...which was another rambling, wordy, deflection.

Tell us your opinion, Shard. Put yourself in the position of the reporter, if you like. Imagine what you would think about the comments made towards you. Would you find such behaviour threatening? Greenhill asked for your opinion, not what you thought other people's opinion might be.

I'm now fascinated to hear the answer to this question. It's not a very difficult one, but in a Paxman/Howard sort of a way you're making more of an arse of yourself by deflecting it, or answering a different question, than you would by just answering what Greenhill asked.

What's your opinion: was the fans' behaviour threatening, or not?

I'll throw my opinion in here - been following this thread, I'm mostly with Zoe that it's just making me rage.

If I were the reporter... would I feel threatened that he was actually going to try to rape me in public, or shove a vibrator in my ear? Probably not.

However, would I feel threatened that he would continue hurling verbal abuse at me while I'm on camera trying to do my job, or threatened that he would continue getting belligerent and that him and his friends, who outnumber me, would just keep drunkenly yelling over me, since clearly there is not going to be any reasoning? Would I feel threatened that *I* may then get in trouble because I decided to try to stand up for myself on live television? Absolutely.

My opinion: The fans behaviour was threatening, but the reporter did not feel threatened.

It was a silly question by Greenhill, and you show you equal incapacity to hold an intellectual position by reiterating it.

Just nope? Is that all you have? I think you are the one that isn't understanding: We aren't talking about feminism or about the guys actions. We are talking about the issue of employer induced pressure/punishment when it is out of place. In a general sense. Outside of the context of this incident. Regardless of the situation it is not the employers job to police the individual. Thats a de facto dictatorship/censorship on an individual to more restrictive extends than the law, with threat of joblessness. For the millionth time. I'm not condoning the guys actions. He was an arse. His actions were wrong. But the punishing body [the employer] stepped out of their bounds. They are the employer. Their rules or standards do not/should not apply to the employee when they are off the clock. The thing here is he wasn't convicted. If he was convicted under the sections mentioned by FL, and the employers had a policy where they have the right to evaluate the actions of people convicted under the law, and chose to terminate him at that point, that would be different. But he wasn't charged or convicted. The law seems to have no problem with him. Maybe thats something that needs to change. But since he didn't do anything wrong in the eyes of the law, the employer has no right to terminate him like that.
Yes, climate change, the state, police, things about military etc they have to give the opinion their superiors tell them to. At least in the catholic system where I am. That was beside the point but what I was trying to say there is that by Tirytorys logic teachers wouldn't be allowed to express their own opinions on those subjects outside of work because its "policy" or "keeping the integrity of the profession".




Good post and good post! Thank you.

The question I had (which you lead me to beat around the bush) was regarding your statement in post #121. You said something that upset other forum members. I questioned that.

Now you're labeling my questioning of that as "silly"?

Actually this is a good point and I agree with the sentiment.

Gozit and Shard have challenged how much influence an employer should have in an employee's personal life.

But then the thread title is "Trial by media" so it's only natural that the thread is focused on the individual who was tried and found guilty by social media by everybody, including yourself. The prime punishment is that he lost his job and this was executed when he was not working or representing his firm.

I don't think you can be too critical of the individuals who are looking at what is applicable to the title.

However I am in total agreement that because of the "pack mentality" and opportunity to self righteously bully a culprit that people have lost sight of the victim which sadly happens too often when there is heavy media attention involved.

The reporter was clearly irritated and angered more than anything else and rightfully so. As she points out it happens a lot and she was fed up with it. The behaviour was drunk and immature and once you add the content it tips to highly offensive and threatening. The latter in my opinion justifies the employer wanting to sever their ties.

I don't think the reporter had any particular reason to feel threatened. The game was over and there were thousands of people walking past minding their own business, a police presence in the area and a camera man and security guard.

I actually probably walked past the incident myself but had no interest in CityTV as last time they interviewed me they edited my highly intellectual comments on the launch of the new iPad to take me out of context and make me look a bigger wally than you all know me to be (hard I know)

Don't get me started on how cheap I think City TV's journalism is.

Me too. I had to bow out, I was getting so angry.

And what opinion do you think he was trying to express Gozit????? That's it entirely acceptable to ".....". This is not something to do with for example a science teacher teaching evolution who believes in God and creation (is there one anyway?) This is a person making a violent and sexual remark to another person in public for all to hear.

I would just like one of them to admit that is what they're defending here: a man's right to insult and harrass women outside of work without consequences to his job.

[QUOTE=Gozit;11653527... Outside of the context of this incident ...[/QUOTE]

OK then, let's take it out of the context of his incident.

An employer can choose who it wants to employ.

That is it. The end of the matter.

That's right. There was no "Trial by media", so that's a moot point. The board met, they discussed "threats" and "opportunities" (business terms for external stuff), then chose wisely.

I might be wrong but I think the point they were trying to make is that it is who is applying (administering?) the consequences that they thought was wrong.

They haven't said it is a mans right to insult and harass - just that it should be dealt with through the proper legal channels by impartial authorities. (In fact I think Gozit even said perhaps the law should be changed to recognize the problem)

But in this case they are completely misunderstanding what is happening. His ex-employer is not punishing the arsehole for what he did. As you say, that is the prerogative of the police and courts. They simply decided they don't want to employ an arsehole.

Priceless!