Richard Keys and Andy Gray

[Red]

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.

Suggesting someone is not up to the job purely on the basis of their gender.

It's what this whole story's been about.

[East End Lady]

It's sexual discrimination as they implied that she would not know the rules because she was a woman. Again in private if you want to state this view then fine but you cannot do so in the workplace

[East End Lady]

Oops Red beat me to it

[Hoop Blah]

But surely discrimination has to be from someone with an influence over the persons selection or opportunity to perform their job doesn't it?

If they were the head of the Refering body, whatever it's called these days, then yeah bang to rights they're discriminating as and when they don't select her for a big game if the decision is based on her gender preventing her from doing it to standard.

[Red]

But surely discrimination has to be from someone with an influence over the persons selection or opportunity to perform their job doesn't it?

Absolutely not. We work with a lot of third parties, as most companies do, and if I suggested that such and such an account director wouldn't have a hope of understanding our requirements because she was a woman then I'd be in trouble for it.

I didn't choose that supplier, or that account director.

[Red]

Oops Red beat me to it

Might get some t-shirts of this as well

[Hoop Blah]

But you are in a position to influence? Being a customer/supplier of that third party with a relationship with them you are involved so yes I could understand that.

I think this was really where I was coming from with my initial legality question ealier. I don't think (and this might be arguable in some peoples mind considering the power of Sky) that Keys and Gray had any influence over the lino's career or suitability and so I'm not convinced there is any real discrimination. I may well be wrong though, hence the question.

It's obvious that they didn't actually believe she needed the laws explaining to her either, so I do think there is an element of truth to the 'banter defence', as weak as that banter was.

[Red]

But you are in a position to influence? Being a customer/supplier of that third party with a relationship with them you are involved so yes I could understand that.

I think this was really where I was coming from with my initial legality question ealier. I don't think (and this might be arguable in some peoples mind considering the power of Sky) that Keys and Gray had any influence over the lino's career or suitability and so I'm not convinced there is any real discrimination. I may well be wrong though, hence the question.

It's obvious that they didn't actually believe she needed the laws explaining to her either, so I do think there is an element of truth to the 'banter defence', as weak as that banter was.

Come on Hoop Blah, they're public figures, "celebrities" if you like. It does enormous harm to sky's image and brand if it's seen that their head presenting duo are chauvinist pigs.

There'll almost certainly be something in their contract about not bringing sky into disrepute, and this episode clearly has done that.

You can argue this from a number of angles - but the bottom line is that Keys and Gray haven't come out well from it.

[RobRoyal]

It's obvious that they didn't actually believe she needed the laws explaining to her either, so I do think there is an element of truth to the 'banter defence', as weak as that banter was.

Seriously? A big factor for me was how deadly serious they were. Anger and contempt came across, not jocularity.

"There was another one wasn't there?" "Wendy Toms" "She was f*cking sh*t as well"

[Hoop Blah]

But you are in a position to influence? Being a customer/supplier of that third party with a relationship with them you are involved so yes I could understand that.

I think this was really where I was coming from with my initial legality question ealier. I don't think (and this might be arguable in some peoples mind considering the power of Sky) that Keys and Gray had any influence over the lino's career or suitability and so I'm not convinced there is any real discrimination. I may well be wrong though, hence the question.

It's obvious that they didn't actually believe she needed the laws explaining to her either, so I do think there is an element of truth to the 'banter defence', as weak as that banter was.

Come on Hoop Blah, they're public figures, "celebrities" if you like. It does enormous harm to sky's image and brand if it's seen that their head presenting duo are chauvinist pigs.

There'll almost certainly be something in their contract about not bringing sky into disrepute, and this episode clearly has done that.

You can argue this from a number of angles - but the bottom line is that Keys and Gray haven't come out well from it.

Again I agree with that, and I've said all along I pretty much agree with the sacking because, as you say, they have a duty to protect the image of their employer etc.

However, that image is only being tarred because of the media and public uproar over something that is common place amongst the listeners, readers and viewers (let alone rest of the staff) at all those outlets that have fanned the flames and I still remain unconvinced that it's illegal (I'm not sure if you're saying it is or not considering the last couple of posts). Is that really right that the moral highground is taken so hypocritically and has ultimately cost them their jobs?

I disklike the pair and have done for some time, less so Keys admittedly, so I'm quite pleased their not going to on Sky anymore, but that aside I think it's a bit of a shambles.

[Hoop Blah]

It's obvious that they didn't actually believe she needed the laws explaining to her either, so I do think there is an element of truth to the 'banter defence', as weak as that banter was.

Seriously? A big factor for me was how deadly serious they were. Anger and contempt came across, not jocularity.

"There was another one wasn't there?" "Wendy Toms" "She was f*cking sh*t as well"

To be fair, Wendy Toms was pretty poor!

Do you really believe that they thought she didn't know the rules then? Of course not. It was crap banter, based on misogyny, chauvinism and sexism but it wasn't like they wanted her shot. It was just middle aged men being crass.

[Red]

When you say illegal you mean their sacking was illegal? I may have misunderstood you earlier then.

Possibly - ultimately that'll be for any tribunal to decide. But the fact that Keys has resigned speaks for itself really - either way their positions are untenable now.

[Hoop Blah]

No, I was asking whether their comments were illegal, as in being discriminatory bearing in mind their lack of influence and control over the lino's career opportunities.

I guess by implication that could mean the sacking too. As you say, that would be down to a tribunal and is totally dependant on the T&Cs of Grays contract.

[RobRoyal]

It's obvious that they didn't actually believe she needed the laws explaining to her either, so I do think there is an element of truth to the 'banter defence', as weak as that banter was.

Seriously? A big factor for me was how deadly serious they were. Anger and contempt came across, not jocularity.

"There was another one wasn't there?" "Wendy Toms" "She was f*cking sh*t as well"

To be fair, Wendy Toms was pretty poor!

Do you really believe that they thought she didn't know the rules then? Of course not. It was crap banter, based on misogyny, chauvinism and sexism but it wasn't like they wanted her shot. It was just middle aged men being crass.

I don't think I've ever seen a lino that I thought could do the job better than I could (which might be down to me underestimating how hard the job is).

But anyway, I'm not sure whether or not they thought she knew the rules. I'm pretty convinced they thought that by dint of her sex she would necessarily be worse than a male lino.

[BR2]

If not then why do you live here rather than say in North Korea for example?

Have to admire your posts BR2 - there's never any shades of grey, no half way houses.

To answer the above though - I imagine trying to get a visa would be a nightmare

[bigmike]

Sky Sports announce a new sponsor ... "Just for men"... A Sky Sports offical stated we are very pleased with the deal with Just for men . The main reason for the deal is that Just for men gets rid of Gray fast

[Bandini]

Sky Sports announce a new sponsor ... "Just for men"... A Sky Sports offical stated we are very pleased with the deal with Just for men . The main reason for the deal is that Just for men gets rid of Gray fast

I tried to make the same joke to an American friend of mine in the last advert break of Dirty Dancing. It failed for a similar reason.

[brendywendy]

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.

i agree that if jackson didnt compain, then its a bit off. but then you dont know if she didnt comlain just because she was new, intimidated by the laddish atmosphere in her new workplace, scared of upsetting the boys in case they made her worklife hell.

and most importnatly - if the female journo said that to a bloke who was very concious of his penis size it would have upset him, it would have belittled him, and he may have felt ahrrassed.
surely it only takes someone to be offended , for it to be offensive

[brendywendy]

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.

does it come down to what is nicer to look at,and the preferences of their clientele.

"young and attractive people get more jobs in the media than old ugly people" shocker
wasnt there a case the other day about some old bint from country file- she won her case i think

[brendywendy]

But you are in a position to influence? Being a customer/supplier of that third party with a relationship with them you are involved so yes I could understand that.

I think this was really where I was coming from with my initial legality question ealier. I don't think (and this might be arguable in some peoples mind considering the power of Sky) that Keys and Gray had any influence over the lino's career or suitability and so I'm not convinced there is any real discrimination. I may well be wrong though, hence the question.

It's obvious that they didn't actually believe she needed the laws explaining to her either, so I do think there is an element of truth to the 'banter defence', as weak as that banter was.

probably why the didnt sack him for the lino comments but used the previous incident where it was with somone over whom he had influence.


& i can hear no banter, i cant even here laughter, theyre deadly serious, and quite bitter about it.
you only have to hear his radio "apology" to realise he actually meant every word