Re: Trial by media
 

Seriously!

You seriously think the guy was about to rape her. Really !!!

Re: Trial by media
 

Whilst the vocabulary was suggestive and highly inappropriate I think to call it "rape threat" is going a bit far now.

Re: Trial by media
 

Unfortunately the laws of the land and behaving yourself are meant to apply to a person 24 hours per day.

I don't get this separation between work and play malarky.

If you commit a crime at work and are sent to jail for it will you argue that it was while you were at work and you shouldn't be in jail during your free time?

Re: Trial by media
 

No I don't but that's what he said he was going to do. How do you react when someone threatens your wife, daughters, sisters with sexual violence?

He said he was going to **** her. He wasn't asking permission so that's threatening rape.

Re: Trial by media
 

Before this gets out of hand, and I know you are looking at this from an obvious female perspective Bats, but ! The police are not even interested so the threat of rape'is a mute point now. Anyhow he wasn't even the one who shouted that, he was the one who just stood and said it was funny, and his mum would laugh, eventually.

Isn't supporting TFC and paying for season tickets (yes I know he is a season ticket holder in area 115) punishment enough ?

Re: Trial by media
 

He laughed, he condoned, he encouraged. That's enough football or no.

PS it's a moot point not mute.

Re: Trial by media
 

Yes the law applies to a person 24 hours a day. Company policy or company code of conduct doesn't. Or shouldn't, rather.

That is a completely different scenario. If you commit a crime and are sent to jail it is the police and the judge/jury charging and sentencing you. That is their job. It is not the company/workplace's job to charge and sentence you for violating "company policy" or "company ethics" (whether directly stated or implied) while not on company payroll or company property.

As someone else said, the police don't even care.

Re: Trial by media
 

You are completely missing the point. It is not the case that because he was an offensive arsehole he should lose his job. It is that his employer has the absolute right to choose who it wants to employ. And, if it doesn't want to employ offensive arseholes, it is see ya later.

The only question is whether or not the offensive arsehole is due to any severance.

Re: Trial by media
 

It's a matter of deportment. In the public service employees are responsible for appearing respectable on and off the job. A Canadian Minister of Defence who was found getting drunk with some Armed Forces personnel in a strip club in Germany lost his job as a result so it works at all levels. Losing a cabinet post because you want to be one of the boys is an extreme example, but if you're too stupid not to act out in public you're probably too stupid to have an important job. Private companies with a code of conduct written into their personnel policies can sack any employee they find in the gutter and the employee won't have any recourse. In my job as a janitor for a non-governmental cultural organisation if I was filmed doing something that embarrassing I'd be gone like the wind because personnel policies are written to deal with scenarios that may bring the employer any negative publicity, whether the employee is on the clock or not. Ask anybody that wants to do something bad what the first thing you do is: get the bartender to turn off the cameras. Mr Arsenal will find another job but it won't be with the government and probably not with a major corporation.

Re: Trial by media
 

This. :goodpost:

Re: Trial by media
 

Makes sense that they terminated him. Not saying I agree, but it makes sense.

Re: Trial by media
 

:goodpost:

Re: Trial by media
 

Yep, bang on. There's a reason that companies can choose to sack employees who just show poor judgement, even if it's outside of work, like the woman who tweeted about catching AIDS in South Africa and was sacked by the time she got off the plane... the company can choose if they want to employ people who show such poor judgement, who cannot demonstrate that they have respect for others, and who don't conduct themselves in a reasonable manner both inside and outside of work.

Re: Trial by media
 

It's a good way restrict and reduce personal freedoms, agreed. Slippery slope.

Re: Trial by media
 

In the employment climate in North America, employers can dump anyone for any reason; there's no requirement that an employer exercise good judgement, show respect for employees or conduct itself in a reasonable manner. And employers do not, people get fired for all sorts of whimsical reasons. Employees here are like customers in a pub in the UK; they're there at the day-to-day whim of the employer/landlord.

In that context, it seems to me that it's not a restriction of personal freedom that someone gets fired for being an obnoxious arsehole. Employers do have that degree of control over the expressed opinions of their employees. There's no right to a job and no security in one's job. In the UK the argument would be more nuanced as there's an established concept of freedom of opinion outside the workplace but here there is not and we have an example of a good result incidentally deriving from a bad system.