Richard Keys and Andy Gray

[soggy biscuit]

Freedom of speech does not = saying anything you want, anywhere you want, any time you want.

[Red]

Oh right. Yes I agree - sorry thought we'd covered that and moved on.

[Red]

LOL @ Jeremy Clarkson leaping to Gray & Key's defence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351025/Jeremy-Clarkson-attacks-Sky-Sports-sacking-Andy-Gray-following-Richard-Keys-resignation.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Peas in a pod really.

[brendywendy]

IMHO there is now no such thing as freedom of speech.
We now have a conditional and very limited version of freedom of speech.

try shouting fire in a cinema
or bomb on a plane
or N*gg*r in the bronx

and see where your freedom of speech would have got you, twenty years ago/ or today

and imo freedom of speech doesnt, and has never, given you the right to upset or offend other people without some consequences

There you go again spouting off in a holier than thou way without reading properly what has been written.
My point was that there is no absolute freedom of speech (in response to Hoop Blah).
So stop arguing with yourself-I doubt if anybody disagrees with you.
Incidentally you say "your freedom of speech"-does that mean that you don't believe in any freedom of speech?
If not then why do you live here rather than say in North Korea for example?

LOL- couldnt get a visa

i wasnt arguing Vs your post, but against the one you quoted from HB
i wasnt arguing against myself either.

the only bit of yours i disagreed with was the use of the word now- which made it sound like we used to have it, until the key/gray g8 incident


apologies for the confusion. ill attempt to be less holier than thou in future mr kettle.

[Gloria Gooner]

Clarkson is becoming a parody of himself.

[LUX]

"I'd rather move to France than change my behaviour"



CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOUR JEREMY, PLEASE, FFS.

[Hoop Blah]

Has anyone suggested their comments were illegal, or is it just an open question?

Have they suggested it? Not as such no, although I'd say some of the reactions from the media (and perhaps on here) would give that impression.

It was more an open question, but at the same time sacking someone for something that's perfectly legal seems a little harsh.

So to get sacked you have to break the law?

Calling my boss a pcunt isn't illegal but I doubt it'd do my career much good.

Don't think legality has anything to do with this.

But it probably wouldn't get you the sack (even if it wasn't your first offence) and it would depending on your relationship and the context it was used in.

It's more the reaction to it that I think is overblown considering the act isn't illegal.

[RobRoyal]

This gets my goat.

What has this whole business got to do with freedom of speech? If I tell my boss I think he's a f*king idiot, and I subsequently get sacked, has my freedom of speech been violated? No-one's saying that Gray and Keys don't have the right to express sexist opinions. Say it down the pub, say it when the mic is off, say it live on air for God's sake - do you think they're going to get arrested? What this has to do with is rules of conduct decided by your employer (albeit, quite obviously in response to public opinion in this case). It's not their right to freedom of speech that is the issue here, it's their right to be employed by Sky Sports. They've continually made life extremely uncomfortable for everyone they've worked with for ages (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... eys-sixist ). None of us would have got away with this at our place of work. There's something sick within that business that's allowed them to get away with it for so long. Good riddance.

(Red got there before me, I see)

[brendywendy]

Have they suggested it? Not as such no, although I'd say some of the reactions from the media (and perhaps on here) would give that impression.

It was more an open question, but at the same time sacking someone for something that's perfectly legal seems a little harsh.

So to get sacked you have to break the law?

Calling my boss a pcunt isn't illegal but I doubt it'd do my career much good.

Don't think legality has anything to do with this.

But it probably wouldn't get you the sack (even if it wasn't your first offence) and it would depending on your relationship and the context it was used in.

It's more the reaction to it that I think is overblown considering the act isn't illegal.

id definitely be sacked straight iff, if i called my boss a oxf*rd to her face
foul and abusive language, threatening/aggressive use of language,both grounds for gross misconduct in the company handbook

[Red]

OK, lets suppose I turn up work l8 every day, am rude and obniouxous to people, and consistently fail to do what is reasonably expected of me during the working day.

Nothing illegal has happened. Could I be given the sack? Absolutely.

Or closer to the bone lets say I've been found out discussing over IM which birds in the office I'd like to perform various sexual acts on. Not illegal - but certainly sackable (and has happened to an old collegue of mine)

The law has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Hoop Blah]

I don't think I've said it's been against their freedom of speach or that it was wrong to be sacked.

My point is that they've been hauled over the coals for having an opinion that isn't illegal and it's that public/media outcry that's really got them the boot. Why is there such an outcry when, by the laws of the land, they've not actually said anything wrong.

[cmonurz]

None of us would have got away with this at our place of work.

Lots to agree with in your post, but this bit I don't.

There's an article by a female journalist in today's Times talking about office banter, sexual quips shared between work colleagues that mean nothing, aren't offensive, aren't harrassing (she gives the example of glancing a male colleague's crotch and saying 'that reminds me, I must buy some cocktail sticks').

It's harmless, and I maintain the point I made earlier, that had this not been made public in the media, Gray would still be in the job. If Jackson herself didn't complain, then I don't see the issue.

[Hoop Blah]

OK, lets suppose I turn up work l8 every day, am rude and obniouxous to people, and consistently fail to do what is reasonably expected of me during the working day.

Nothing illegal has happened. Could I be given the sack? Absolutely.

Or closer to the bone lets say I've been found out discussing over IM which birds in the office I'd like to perform various sexual acts on. Not illegal - but certainly sackable (and has happened to an old collegue of mine)

The law has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Don't disagree with that, I'm not say they shouldn't be sacked because what they did wasn't illegal. I'm saying the outrage and media attention that has got them the sack is a bit OTT considering what they did is pretty standard fare up and down the country and they've not actually done anything wrong.

Your example above (the first section) is basically you not doing your job, so is a little more understandable. I'd imagine the IM incident was, a bit like this, more of an excuse as I've know people get caught doing much the same, if not worse, and just getting a slapped wrist. Remember the PWC rate the new intake email going round. None of them got the sack did they?

[floyd__streete]

closer to the bone

Did you smash it?

[Red]

[Wax Jacket]

good to see a picture of a woman ironing, well found Red

[buzzby]

We were discussing at work about how the female Sky Sports News readers are all young and sexy.

What are people views on this?

What is the reason for this? I bet they wouldn't put a middle aged woman on there. Surely this is wrong aswell.

[East End Lady]

Although personally I think that this has all gone OTT I should point out that it is illegal to discriminate in the workplace which is what they have done as they were at work at the time, this therefore reflects on their employer which is why Sky have had to take action. Even if you agree with what they said it is not the same as saying it in a private situation

[RobRoyal]

None of us would have got away with this at our place of work.

Lots to agree with in your post, but this bit I don't.

There's an article by a female journalist in today's Times talking about office banter, sexual quips shared between work colleagues that mean nothing, aren't offensive, aren't harrassing (she gives the example of glancing a male colleague's crotch and saying 'that reminds me, I must buy some cocktail sticks').

It's harmless, and I maintain the point I made earlier, that had this not been made public in the media, Gray would still be in the job. If Jackson herself didn't complain, then I don't see the issue.

Well, fair enough. Maybe my view is slanted by working at the Environment Agency where I really doubt this kind of thing would be tolerated (haven't tested this, to be honest). The issue of propriety you bring up is a very tricky area. It does depend on the context, and on the feelings of the party on the receiving end of the banter. But it's clear from the Sky journalists that have come forward that many, many people working around Keys and Gray deeply resented their behaviour (going well beyond sexism into plain bullying of other employees). If they didn't complain, I suppose they may have felt it would fall on deaf ears given the power of the two men and the sympathies of those in charge. But it's about more than Jackson's reaction, in that instance - she's not the only one allowed to have an opinion on working with a sexist oaf. If someone else in the studio had made a complaint, a decision about whether it was a shared joke or one just at her expense would figure. On it's own, clearly not a sacking offence, but it's hardly isolated.

I don't think I've said it's been against their freedom of speach or that it was wrong to be sacked.

My point is that they've been hauled over the coals for having an opinion that isn't illegal and it's that public/media outcry that's really got them the boot. Why is there such an outcry when, by the laws of the land, they've not actually said anything wrong.

Because our society judges sexism to be morally wrong. This is how moral understandings sometimes advance. You wouldn't be complaining if it was racism, I imagine - but you might have been if this had taken place 30 years ago.

[Hoop Blah]

Although personally I think that this has all gone OTT I should point out that it is illegal to discriminate in the workplace which is what they have done as they were at work at the time, this therefore reflects on their employer which is why Sky have had to take action. Even if you agree with what they said it is not the same as saying it in a private situation

What was the discrimination then? I must've missed that bit.