Keys & Gray in Sexism Row

[Alex99]

And this is where I disagree. I think that being a professional, Gray will probably mask whatever prejudices he has while broadcasting live. I think it's fair to give him a shot at commentary. The tiny fraction of incidents where someone might not agree with him and call sexism doesn't even amount to his actually being sexist, he's a pundit, they chat shit all the time for myriad reasons. As I've said already it's only extra ammo if you want to disagree with him about whether Massey got a call right. Basically what you're saying is that because he was caught off camera being sexist we now can't allow him to commentate again just in case he's sexist on air. Whether or not you "trust" him to give objective analysis on women officials in the future is irrelevant. He might well come across hugely prejudiced in commentary in which case he will rightfully get the sack again (or at least people will cry for his sacking, whatever). He probably won't though. He'll probably do his best to do his job properly, really. I doubt he wants sacking again. I imagine in his spare time he'll carry on thinking women shouldn't be anywhere near footy.

He didn't overtly express these opinions before it got leaked. By your logic Sky may as well have just let him keep his job. He can't be trusted because he's shown time and time again that he thinks behaving in a sexist manner and voicing sexist opinions is entirely acceptable. It doesn't matter whether he does it live on air, the fact that he does, and has done it, in what is his place of work, multiple times , should be enough reason for anyone to see why he shouldn't be employed in this capacity again. On or off camera, we know he has, or has had, these opinions. Regardless of whether he goes "Oh it's Massey again. She's got that wrong. Women know nothing about football," or "No, I disagree there. She's got that one wrong. Poor, poor decision," the attitudes he has previously expressed (and been unapologetic for) are entirely relevant to the context of it.

In all honesty, as gross as the Massey incident was, I found the incidents where was asking female colleagues to tuck his shirt into the front of his pants and chanting 'get your tits out for the lads' far more of a reason to not let him anywhere near that environment again.

We're also just going round in circles here. You clearly see absolutely no problem with letting him back, with some extremely flawed reasoning that requires everyone to just forget what he's said in the past. I've explained as best I can, multiple times, why he shouldn't be allowed back, but obviously some people don't give a shit as long as they get to hear him go "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH! YOU BEAUTY!" every now and then.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

He didn't overtly express these opinions before it got leaked. By your logic Sky may as well have just let him keep his job. He can't be trusted because he's shown time and time again that he thinks behaving in a sexist manner and voicing sexist opinions is entirely acceptable.

He'd never had any repercussions before, he'd been allowed to get away with it. Now it's in the public consciousness and he's been sacked for it. If he does it again he will be sacked again.

In all honesty, as gross as the Massey incident was, I found the incidents where was asking female colleagues to tuck his shirt into the front of his pants and chanting 'get your tits out for the lads' far more of a reason to not let him anywhere near that environment again.

We're also just going round in circles here. You clearly see absolutely no problem with letting him back, with some extremely flawed reasoning that requires everyone to just forget what he's said in the past. I've explained as best I can, multiple times, why he shouldn't be allowed back, but obviously some people don't give a shit as long as they get to hear him go "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH! YOU BEAUTY!" every now and then.

I think he should be allowed to work until he fecks up again. The next time he does something like that he will be sacked again. If he's been sacked from two jobs for the same behaviour he's well and truly fecked, no one will hire him after that.

For what it's worth I don't even particularly like him as a commentator. I don't think he should be completely barred from employment in an industry though. He's been sacked, that's his punishment, which he's served.

I see no problem with letting him back, no. If he behaves himself then fair enough. If not he will be sacked again. You don't have to forget everything he's said in the past at all. You have to pragmatically realise that he's said that in the past, which is why future employers should take it into consideration, but not flat out refuse to give him a job. He'll be under close scrutiny from everyone, he won't get away with it for any period this time.

 

[Alex99]

He's been sacked precisely because he couldn't behave himself. He's been unapologetic about the fact that he couldn't behave himself. Why on earth should he be allowed the chance to feck up again?

 

[That'sHernandez]

He's been sacked precisely because he couldn't behave himself. He's been unapologetic about the fact that he couldn't behave himself. Why on earth should he be allowed the chance to feck up again?

Because believe it or not being sexist isn't illegal in the UK and he has the right to seek employment wherever he likes. More fool the employers of his desired industry if they take him on, as he is a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen.

 

[Alex99]

Because believe it or not being sexist isn't illegal in the UK and he has the right to seek employment wherever he likes. More fool the employers of his desired industry if they take him on, as he is a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen.

I've not said he's not entitled to apply for the job. I've said he shouldn't be given it.

 

[That'sHernandez]

I've not said he's not entitled to apply for the job. I've said he shouldn't be given it.

Well I don't disagree with that but unfortunately due to their reputation now, they will no doubt still get plenty of job offers as they will attract viewers for their potential guffs and I imagine that will go on until enough is enough and someone sues for a considerable amount of money.

 

[kouroux]

He's been sacked precisely because he couldn't behave himself. He's been unapologetic about the fact that he couldn't behave himself. Why on earth should he be allowed the chance to feck up again?

He should be allowed to work as a pundit as he hardly committed a major crime even if what he and his pal said was wrong on every level,however hiring him is his employer's risk and probably loss. Second chances are given to much worse fellows than Gray and Keys.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Sky are just flawless though. I mean it's not as if you have to be a great looking girl to get a job as one of their sports presenters now is it

 

[Alex99]

He should be allowed to work as a pundit as he hardly committed a major crime even if what he and his pal said was wrong on every level,however hiring him is his employer's risk and probably loss. Second chances are given to much worse fellows than Gray and Keys.

Ridiculous argument.

Firstly, it's not just the Massey incident that the pair are guilty of. They sexually harassed female colleagues, and in some instances, sexual harassment can be considered criminal. It may not be a relatively major crime, but it can be a crime nonetheless.

Secondly, just because other people who have done worse things may have been given second chances doesn't mean that they are entitled to a second chance. It's an entirely separate thing.

Sky are just flawless though. I mean it's not as if you have to be a great looking girl to get a job as one of their sports presenters now is it

Sky, or in this instance Sky Sports, seem to have extremely problematic set-ups on a number of fronts. It's a different discussion to this though and holds no weight on what Keys and Gray did.

 

[kouroux]

Ridiculous argument.

Firstly, it's not just the Massey incident that the pair are guilty of. They sexually harassed female colleagues, and in some instances, sexual harassment can be considered criminal. It may not be a relatively major crime, but it can be a crime nonetheless.

Secondly, just because other people who have done worse things may have been given second chances doesn't mean that they are entitled to a second chance. It's an entirely separate thing.

I don't agree with that, I think them being completely forbidden from working on any TV would be taking things too far considering what they did (and again I'm not condoning what they did).

 

[FortBoyard]

Is that an insult? Are you attacking the poster instead of the post? Apparently that's ban worthy, these days.

Edit: In fact, your implying I'm sexist. Reported.

Was just reading through the thread and nearly died laughing at this.

The guy who is debating that Keys and Gray, the guys who were punished for insulting people, were harshly treated subsequently reports people on the other side of the debate for 'insulting' him, in the hope they are punished.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Ridiculous argument.

Firstly, it's not just the Massey incident that the pair are guilty of. They sexually harassed female colleagues, and in some instances, sexual harassment can be considered criminal. It may not be a relatively major crime, but it can be a crime nonetheless.

Secondly, just because other people who have done worse things may have been given second chances doesn't mean that they are entitled to a second chance. It's an entirely separate thing.



Sky, or in this instance Sky Sports, seem to have extremely problematic set-ups on a number of fronts. It's a different discussion to this though and holds no weight on what Keys and Gray did.

C'mon would you watch ssn if they were all fat trogs presenting? Fit ladies = ratings

 

[FortBoyard]

Right, racism is a difficult one, which is why I specifically didn't mention it. Saying racist things, apparently makes you racist under racism laws. So, if you make a racist joke, you are a racist. If you make a rape joke, are you a rapist? If you make peado joke, are you a peado? If you make a sexist joke are you a sexist?

this post!

One of the funniest threads ever, didn't expect that when I opened it!

 

[Eyepopper]

racism - I always find it a difficult one too.......



And 'attitudes' and 'actions' - whats the difference, can someone please explain this to me?

 

[Alex99]

I don't agree with that, I think them being completely forbidden from working on any TV would be taking things too far considering what they did (and again I'm not condoning what they did).

They aren't forbidden from working on any TV, I'd just question why any broadcaster would want to employ them given what we know. They're two old blokes with outdated views of the world, who seem incapable of behaving in an appropriately professional way in the jobs that they want, and after being caught out for the gross behaviour they've repeatedly displayed have been completely unapologetic about it.

There are literally no reasons to employ them as football pundits other than the fact that they are, to a certain extent, able to perform their jobs, and to try and attract an audience through the controversy and potential controversy it may cause.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

Secondly, just because other people who have done worse things may have been given second chances doesn't mean that they are entitled to a second chance. It's an entirely separate thing.

They should be allowed a second chance, though. We live in a free, 1st world country in 2014. Gray fecked up, but he should be allowed to work again. He's clearly a fairly decent employee and BT obviously think it's worth the risk in employing him.

All this "it sends a message that sexism is ok" bollocks is just that: bollocks. He was sacked because of his behaviour. That sends the message that it is not ok. His being given another job sends the message that we're not some vindictive, draconian society.

 

[kouroux]

They aren't forbidden from working on any TV, I'd just question why any broadcaster would want to employ them given what we know. They're two old blokes with outdated views of the world, who seem incapable of behaving in an appropriately professional way in the jobs that they want, and after being caught out for the gross behaviour they've repeatedly displayed have been completely unapologetic about it.

There are literally no reasons to employ them as football pundits other than the fact that they are, to a certain extent, able to perform their jobs, and to try and attract an audience through the controversy and potential controversy it may cause.

Now that i agree with definitely.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

Now that i agree with definitely.

It's a weird decision but I'd imagine they're counting on his previous "fans" not dwindling too much because of his being an arse hole and potentially a fair chunk of controversy hunters to tune in too? They're desperate to catch up in terms of viewers aren't they? Even this retard has got to be better then Michael Owen.

 

[Alex99]

They should be allowed a second chance, though. We live in a free, 1st world country in 2014. Gray fecked up, but he should be allowed to work again. He's clearly a fairly decent employee and BT obviously think it's worth the risk in employing him.

All this "it sends a message that sexism is ok" bollocks is just that: bollocks. He was sacked because of his behaviour. That sends the message that it is not ok. His being given another job sends the message that we're not some vindictive, draconian society.

No, it does send the message that it's okay. No one has said that he shouldn't be allowed to work again, but he certainly shouldn't be working in a role that puts him in the public eye as much as being a commentator or pundit for a major sports broadcaster does. Both Gray and Keys worked for Talksport after the leaks, and both now work for beIN Sports in the Middle-East. This has removed them, largely, from the public eye in Britain.

When someone displays unprofessionalism to the extent that the two of them displayed, it's absurd to suggest that they should be hired in similar positions again. There are plenty of other people perfectly qualified to do the jobs they did just as well, if not better, without all of the baggage that those two would bring with them.

I'd also argue that you give someone a second chance when they've been repentant for the mistake they made that cost them their first. Neither of them have, so there's absolutely nothing suggesting that they have changed their ways, and if anything it seems more likely that they'll be exactly the same as they were before.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

No, it does send the message that it's okay. No one has said that he shouldn't be allowed to work again, but he certainly shouldn't be working in a role that puts him in the public eye as much as being a commentator or pundit for a major sports broadcaster does. Both Gray and Keys worked for Talksport after the leaks, and both now work for beIN Sports in the Middle-East. This has removed them, largely, from the public eye in Britain.

No. It doesn't send that message. At all. It sends the message that we're willing to forgive people their mistakes. No one in England is thick enough to think that because Andy Gray got a new job in broadcasting it's now ok to be a sexist at work. If you're so impressionable as to look to this sort of thing for your definitions of what's ok to do in work, look no further than him being fired for being a sexist... Jesus.

I'd also argue that you give someone a second chance when they've been repentant for the mistake they made that cost them their first. Neither of them have, so there's absolutely nothing suggesting that they have changed their ways, and if anything it seems more likely that they'll be exactly the same as they were before.

If he does it again, he will be sacked again, simple. He'll be under immense scrutiny from public, press and co-workers. Anything he said to, near, or about a woman is going to be mulled over by everyone who hears it and probably leaked too, just in case. He won't get away with it again.

 

[Alex99]

No. It doesn't send that message. At all. It sends the message that we're willing to forgive people their mistakes. No one in England is thick enough to think that because Andy Gray got a new job in broadcasting it's now ok to be a sexist at work. If you're so impressionable as to look to this sort of thing for your definitions of what's ok to do in work, look no further than him being fired for being a sexist... Jesus.



If he does it again, he will be sacked again, simple. He'll be under immense scrutiny from public, press and co-workers. Anything he said to, near, or about a woman is going to be mulled over by everyone who hears it and probably leaked too, just in case. He won't get away with it again.

He hasn't been remotely apologetic about anything he did in the first place, so why should he be given the chance to do it again when all signs point to him not having changed at all?

I'd probably be willing to accept that he be given a second chance if he'd shown anything remotely resembling remorse for his actions, but as it is he's just had a go at whoever leaked the footage and claimed he can't be sexist because he has a mum.

By employing someone that hasn't been at all apologetic about behaving in an extremely sexist way, or shown anything to suggest that he's changed his ways, you are clearly saying that it's alright to be sexist. You forgive people for mistakes when they acknowledge them, not when they pretend it never happened.

No one's said that people are suddenly going to start making sexist comments in work because BT employed Andy Gray, but you only have to look through this thread to see the number of people, yourself included, claiming that the Massey comments were only a joke, and claiming that it was all 'banter', to see that people already think it's acceptable to behave in a sexist way. Some didn't even see it as being sexist.

It's also been suggested numerous times that Sky probably wouldn't have even sacked Keys and Gray if no footage had been leaked, and that's something that I'd probably agree with. That in itself suggests that it's acceptable to be sexist as long as you don't get caught out in a big way, and re-employing someone who did get caught out in a big way and remained unapologetic for their actions for three years reinforces that it's okay.

It's highly unlikely that there are going to be any overt consequences of re-employing him, such as a sudden influx of men being extremely sexist in their offices, but the whole thing will reinforce the sexist attitudes that are already prevalent throughout our society. It's hardly as if there are absolutely no other pundits or commentators out there and BT are in desperate need of someone. There are plenty of people who can do the job perfectly well without having to resort to employing a couple of unrepentant, sexist clowns under the guise of being 'forgiving'.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

No one's said that people are suddenly going to start making sexist comments in work because BT employed Andy Gray, but you only have to look through this thread to see the number of people, yourself included, claiming that the Massey comments were only a joke, and claiming that it was all 'banter', to see that people already think it's acceptable to behave in a sexist way. Some didn't even see it as being sexist.

I said the offside joke was a joke, nothing else. The rest of it is straight up stone age sexism. I'm not defending him.

It's also been suggested numerous times that Sky probably wouldn't have even sacked Keys and Gray if no footage had been leaked, and that's something that I'd probably agree with. That in itself suggests that it's acceptable to be sexist as long as you don't get caught out in a big way, and re-employing someone who did get caught out in a big way and remained unapologetic for their actions for three years reinforces that it's okay.

You're probably right, had it not come out he'd probably have gotten away with it. It suggests that if you don't get caught out you can do whatever you want if you're the sort of dick that does that sort of thing. But we knew that. Sexists will be sexist until they get punished for it. This works with pretty much everything, ever. If you're the sort of person likely to do something like that and you think you can get away with it, you'll do it. We've seen now that he can't get away with it, and he got fired.

It's highly unlikely that there are going to be any overt consequences of re-employing him, such as a sudden influx of men being extremely sexist in their offices, but the whole thing will reinforce the sexist attitudes that are already prevalent throughout our society. It's hardly as if there are absolutely no other pundits or commentators out there and BT are in desperate need of someone. There are plenty of people who can do the job perfectly well without having to resort to employing a couple of unrepentant, sexist clowns under the guise of being 'forgiving'.

It's hugely unlikely. It's also unlikely that he'll do anything overtly sexist too, lest his reputation get further destroyed and he get sacked from a second job in British broadcasting. That would be the final nail in his career coffin, I'd wager.

They've only used Gray in a commentary role so far anyway, haven't they? There's no news on his employment in the studio where we get to see his Jabbantine form struggle with computers. The entire situation with Gray shows that even in positions of considerable security, if you're found and reported being sexist then you'll be shipped out, a large section of the public will think you're a cnut and you'll end up having to take a job at sodding BT Sport. His re-employment is fine as far as I'm concerned. We know he's a twat and if his behaviour resurfaces it will almost certainly be brought to public attention again and he'll be sacked again.

Your argument seems to be that because he is a sexist and demonstrated this at his previous UK job he should not be allowed a similar roll in another UK business and I think that's wrong. If someone wants to take on the risk of employing him, that's their risk. He is obviously still going to hold the same views but that's fine so long as he isn't allowed to act on those views, and he almost certainly won't be any more.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

That he was unapologetic, by the way, should be regularly brought up every time he's interviewed etc. He should apologise and if I were BT I'd make sure he did before offering him full employment (well actually I wouldn't employ him in the first place but still). He's obviously a bell end though and his lack of apology is hardly a surprise. It wouldn't change anything though. It's a nice gesture but it's meaningless. We know he's an arse and we know any apology would be forced and empty.

 

[Alex99]

The offside 'joke' wasn't a joke at all. It was straight-up, overt sexism. There was nothing in it to suggest humour. At all.

My stance is that he's been unrepentant about what he's done, and as such cannot be forgiven for it when it appears that he doesn't even think that he's done something wrong. There are plenty of other people that can do the job just as well as him that aren't massive sexists. I'm not saying that companies shouldn't be allowed to employ him, I'm saying that it would be incredibly ridiculous if one of them did.

I thought it was absurd when Talksport jumped at the opportunity to employ him and Keys, and I think it's absurd that BT are apparently willing to do so as well.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

In a perfect world he wouldn't be offered a similar job. Realistically though, he has a large following for whatever reason and smaller companies will believe that employing him will give them a rating boost. That's offset against whatever PR hit his employment brings and if they think it's worth it they'll give him the job. If they think it's worth it then obviously they've decided the hit they take will be offset by employing someone like Gray with a long history in the job. A really shite co commentator is bad for business, to be fair.

It's not just about doing the job well it's about his fame too. BT are giving him what looks to be a probationary trial period to see if he's worth it in terms of ratings. If he is he'll get the job. It's not absurd at all nor is it mystifying. It makes plenty of sense. If he was so toxic as to not be worth being associated with he wouldn't get the job. Clearly this isn't the case.

Maybe you'd like everyone in the UK to be outraged at what he did so that employing him again would be a stupid decision. That'd be ok, I suppose. It's not going to happen though, especially given that a huge majority of his viewership are football watching blokes. Many aren't going to give a shit that he's a sexist, quite a few probably agree with his views.

 

[Alex99]

I don't even know why you're arguing this. You've suggested you agree with me, yet you keep making these weird excuses for employing him that completely contradict that.

It doesn't matter that some people may agree with him or may not care. I'm also fully aware of why BT might want to employ him, but this doesn't mean that it wouldn't a be a completely absurd decision to do so.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

I don't even know why you're arguing this. You've suggested you agree with me, yet you keep making these weird excuses for employing him that completely contradict that.

It doesn't matter that some people may agree with him or may not care. I'm also fully aware of why BT might want to employ him, but this doesn't mean that it wouldn't a be a completely absurd decision to do so.

Yes it does. We don't live in your lovely world where everyone cares so much about this. It isn't at all absurd to want to employ him. Do you know what absurd means? I'm not making weird excuses. I'm being realistic and logical.

I agree with you that Gray and Keys are sexist idiots. I pretty much disagree with everything you derive from this.

 

[Alex99]

Yes it does. We don't live in your lovely world where everyone cares so much about this. It isn't at all absurd to want to employ him. Do you know what absurd means? I'm not making weird excuses. I'm being realistic and logical.

I agree with you that Gray and Keys are sexist idiots. I pretty much disagree with everything you derive from this.

It's absurd precisely for the reason that they are sexist idiots. There being reasons why someone might want to employ them doesn't remove that, nor does the possibility that the employer views these reasons as outweighing them being sexist idiots.

I can't, and don't, expect everyone to care about this to the extent that I do, but that's irrelevant to the point being made. As unapologetic sexists, it is ridiculous that any major UK sports broadcaster would consider employing either of Andy Gray or Richard Keys to work for them. It doesn't matter how famous they are or how many people care that they are unapologetic sexists, the fact that they are unapologetic sexists should mean that they aren't given a job that will require them not to be sexist.

And of course I know what absurd means, that's why I've used it appropriately numerous times in this thread. Do you?

 

[Ryan's Beard]

It is not absurd or ridiculous at all! It is a logical and justifiable business decision and for that reason it is precisely not absurd. YOU or I might not agree with it and think it's stupid but that's irrelevant. It clearly has it's merits as a business decision or they wouldn't do it.

 

[Alex99]

It is not absurd or ridiculous at all! It is a logical and justifiable business decision and for that reason it is precisely not absurd. YOU or I might not agree with it and think it's stupid but that's irrelevant. It clearly has it's merits as a business decision or they wouldn't do it.

Just because something might be justifiable from a business perspective does not mean that it isn't completely absurd from the perspective of social responsibility.

As an extreme example, it'd make sense from a musical perspective to allow Ian Watkins to front your band and write songs for you, that doesn't mean that it isn't a completely insane decision from other perspectives.

Just because Andy Gray has certain qualities that BT might want in from their commentators doesn't mean that it isn't ridiculous to actually go out an employ an unapologetic sexist in a role that requires him not to be sexist.

Women have a right to feel safe in the workplace. I'd argue that employing either of Gray or Keys would compromise that.

 

[Anderson's Cat]

Couldn't give a shit what they did. Its none of my business. I do know that Super Sunday hasn't been the same without them, especially Gray.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

Just because something might be justifiable from a business perspective does not mean that it isn't completely absurd from the perspective of social responsibility.

As an extreme example, it'd make sense from a musical perspective to allow Ian Watkins to front your band and write songs for you, that doesn't mean that it isn't a completely insane decision from other perspectives.

Just because Andy Gray has certain qualities that BT might want in from their commentators doesn't mean that it isn't ridiculous to actually go out an employ an unapologetic sexist in a role that requires him not to be sexist.

Women have a right to feel safe in the workplace. I'd argue that employing either of Gray or Keys would compromise that.

Social responsibility? Christ alive. He's a fecking pundit. It is not at all absurd in any definition of the word, stop being unrealistic and stop overreacting?

Who the feck is Ian Watkins? If he's the paedo from that rubbish band not only is it a ludicrous analogy it's also wrong because his music was shite.

Because Andy Gray is a good option in terms of their business it is in no way absurd to employ him. It might be risky in terms of RP but it's not "absurd", "ridiculous" or anything else. You've got a very strange view of the world. His employment requires him to not be a sexist. If he is demonstrably sexist again under employment at BT he'll have his employment taken away from him, once again.

I very much doubt the employment of either of those would make any woman feel unsafe for Christ's sake. Are all the women you know trembling, flaky mental cases? If Gray does anything untoward (or more likely says anything) then given his previous it will be very easy for any employee to report this to the higher ups and to the media and he'll be sacked again. Once again with this statement you're implying that you think Gray shouldn't be given a job in any role where he might see a woman just in case he offends her.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Just because something might be justifiable from a business perspective does not mean that it isn't completely absurd from the perspective of social responsibility.

As an extreme example, it'd make sense from a musical perspective to allow Ian Watkins to front your band and write songs for you, that doesn't mean that it isn't a completely insane decision from other perspectives.

Just because Andy Gray has certain qualities that BT might want in from their commentators doesn't mean that it isn't ridiculous to actually go out an employ an unapologetic sexist in a role that requires him not to be sexist.

Women have a right to feel safe in the workplace. I'd argue that employing either of Gray or Keys would compromise that.

This is taking it a bit far, ain't it? You almost make it sound as though they're unrepentant rapists rather than a pair of geezers who ain't exactly up to date with modern gender dynamics.

I think they're well aware of how a significant part of the 2014 demographic regard them as far their form is concerned. So in that sense I think you're wrong when you - seemingly -think they're ticking bombs, so to speak. I agree that it's not very sympathetic that they haven't come out and properly apologized for being out of line as regards the Massey incident - they should've done that, obviously.

 

[Alex99]

Social responsibility? Christ alive. He's a fecking pundit. It is not at all absurd in any definition of the word, stop being unrealistic and stop overreacting?

Who the feck is Ian Watkins? If he's the paedo from that rubbish band not only is it a ludicrous analogy it's also wrong because his music was shite.

Because Andy Gray is a good option in terms of their business it is in no way absurd to employ him. It might be risky in terms of RP but it's not "absurd", "ridiculous" or anything else. You've got a very strange view of the world. His employment requires him to not be a sexist. If he is demonstrably sexist again under employment at BT he'll have his employment taken away from him, once again.

I very much doubt the employment of either of those would make any woman feel unsafe for Christ's sake. Are all the women you know trembling, flaky mental cases? If Gray does anything untoward (or more likely says anything) then given his previous it will be very easy for any employee to report this to the higher ups and to the media and he'll be sacked again. Once again with this statement you're implying that you think Gray shouldn't be given a job in any role where he might see a woman just in case he offends her.

Every business has some degree of social responsibility, national media outlets tend to have more because of the large customer base and the fact that opinions are regularly expressed on their channels or in their newspapers. Employing someone who has repeatedly failed to uphold the professionalism necessary to succeed in maintaining the degree of social responsibility required from their employer would be absurd. How you can say it's perfectly fine to employ a known, unrepentant sexist in a role that requires them not to be sexist is beyond me. They fail before they've even started working.

How is it a ludicrous analogy? Both situations involve an institution considering the employment of someone because they can offer the service they need, but to do so would require them to ignore the individual's past failings. Just because one is more extreme than the other doesn't mean that basic principle isn't the same.

It's not about feeling 'unsafe' in the sense that they fear being attacked, it's about not feeling safe or comfortable enough in their work environment to be able to go about doing their job without worrying about someone making a sexist remark to them or sexually harassing them. Or are we conveniently forgetting the sexual harassment?

If you worked somewhere and your employer announced that you were going to be soon working with a guy that you knew to be big and loud, and had previously been sacked for sexual harassment that involved him asking male colleagues to tuck his shirt into the front of his trousers and asking for them to get their dicks out for him, would you feel comfortable working around him?

I'll repeat it again because you seem to continually fail to grasp this, you cannot separate business sense from social responsibility, nor can you deny that a major television broadcaster as a degree of social responsibility.

The only thing you seem to have taken issue with here is my use of the word 'absurd', which as much as you try and say is incorrect in usage, I maintain is perfectly acceptable. One definition of 'absurd' is 'wildly inappropriate'. I would argue that 'wildly inappropriate' is a perfectly adequate description of the potential employment of Andy Gray as a commentator on BT Sports given that he has remained unapologetic for the actions that got him fired from Sky Sports, three years ago.

This is taking it a bit far, ain't it? You almost make it sound as though they're unrepentant rapists rather than a pair of geezers who ain't exactly up to date with modern gender dynamics.

I think they're well aware of how a significant part of the 2014 demographic regard them as far their form is concerned. So in that sense I think you're wrong when you - seemingly -think they're ticking bombs, so to speak. I agree that it's not very sympathetic that they haven't come out and properly apologized for being out of line as regards the Massey incident - they should've done that, obviously.

See above regarding the 'right to feel safe' part.

They also aren't "a pair of geezers who ain't exactly up to date with modern gender dynamics", and the Massey incident isn't their only failing in regards to sexism. There is evidence of them sexually harassing female co-workers on multiple occasions, and generally being disrespectful and derogatory to women.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Hm. As has been mentioned several times already Gray's behaviour (the "get your tits out" antics and the shirt tucking) towards women is ambiguous in the sense that we don't actually know what kind of environment it took place in. In some places of work sexual innuendo (or even more explicit "banter") is something both men and women take part in of their own free will, both genders giving and taking in equal measure. I worked as an orderly in a hospital for a couple of years and that was just such a place. I actually found it bloody tiresome in the end - it was like working with hormonal teens, and the women were just as bad as the men. I have no idea what the conditions were like at Sky - but it is possible to engage in "banter" of a sexual nature with a member of the opposite sex without this being harassment per default. We don't have anything substantial to back up an assertion that Gray has been harassing women - do we? He comes across as a typical "bantering" sort of bloke, which isn't my favourite kind, but still - I have no idea how he behaves around people who don't appreciate his banter, and the latter is the true measure, surely.

 

[Alex99]

Hm. As has been mentioned several times already Gray's behaviour (the "get your tits out" antics and the shirt tucking) towards women is ambiguous in the sense that we don't actually know what kind of environment it took place in. In some places of work sexual innuendo (or even more explicit "banter") is something both men and women take part in of their own free will, both genders giving and taking in equal measure. I worked as an orderly in a hospital for a couple of years and that was just such a place. I actually found it bloody tiresome in the end - it was like working with hormonal teens, and the women were just as bad as the men. I have no idea what the conditions were like at Sky - but it is possible to engage in "banter" of a sexual nature with a member of the opposite sex without this being harassment per default. We don't have anything substantial to back up an assertion that Gray has been harassing women - do we? He comes across as a typical "bantering" sort of bloke, which isn't my favourite kind, but still - I have no idea how he behaves around people who don't appreciate his banter, and the latter is the true measure, surely.

One of the recordings was of him repeatedly asking Charlotte Jackson to tuck his shirt into the front of his trousers and help do his belt up. She didn't respond once so I think it's safe to say she wasn't enjoying the 'banter'.

 

[Randall Flagg]

One of the recordings was of him repeatedly asking Charlotte Jackson to tuck his shirt into the front of his trousers and help do his belt up. She didn't respond once so I think it's safe to say she wasn't enjoying the 'banter'.

It was rather sleezy and it's not something I would do. But I have seen similar were girls in the workplace do enjoy this kind of of thing and far worse and give as good as they take. Maybe on another day she did similar to Gray.

Do you mind me asking if you have ever actually experienced a working environment?

 

[fishfingers15]

One of the recordings was of him repeatedly asking Charlotte Jackson to tuck his shirt into the front of his trousers and help do his belt up. She didn't respond once so I think it's safe to say she wasn't enjoying the 'banter'.

Genuine question, how many years have you spent working anywhere?

 

[Randall Flagg]

Genuine question, how many years have you spent working anywhere?

Hey I just asked that!

 

[Alex99]

Genuine question, how many years have you spent working anywhere?

Genuine question, why does stuff happening with relative frequency make it okay?

 

[Randall Flagg]

Genuine question, why does stuff happening with relative frequency make it okay?

Answer the question. You do come across as so done who has very little experience in the outside world