A letter on justice and open debate.

[Mon Autre]

I honestly didn’t see that.

He’s got no complaints then, close case.

He also called David Olusuga a dreadful fraud which might not rank as offensively as "fucktard" but is still an unwarranted personal attack on a seemingly well liked/respected industry figure. It's not great form.

 

[Ban-jani]

View attachment 7069

By the way I think it's worth noting that his entire point is bullshit, he says "You can't just hire extra crew" but that is exactly what happened according to the people involved.

He’s really got no complaints about being let go based on that.

You can’t make those accusations and use words like “fucktard” and expect to be retained as a contractor.

If any of my contractors did that they’d be let go by the client.

With that in mind, maybe there is a point about white people being replaced in the media, television, adverts etc. for diversity’s sake?

 

[meltonblue]

He has got freedom of speech, and people have the freedom to choose whether to work with him or not.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

He also called David Olusuga a dreadful fraud which might not rank as offensively as "fucktard" but is still an unwarranted personal attack on a seemingly well liked/respected industry figure. It's not great form.

It's also worth mentioning that David Olusoga is just as working class as this bloke, since he brings it up. Grew up on a council estate where he was forced to move after his house was attacked by the National Front.

 

[Ban-jani]

He also called David Olusuga a dreadful fraud which might not rank as offensively as "fucktard" but is still an unwarranted personal attack on a seemingly well liked/respected industry figure. It's not great form.

No it isn’t, he’s obviously lost the plot a bit there.

 

[domalino]

With that in mind, maybe there is a point about white people being replaced in the media, television, adverts etc. for diversity’s sake?

But that's the thing, he doesn't have a point.

Noel Clarke and ITV were very clear at the time they didn't fire/let go/replace/release anyone. They brought on some extra people at the bottom rung of the ladder to give them a chance to break into the industry.

So not only was he abusive, but he was making shit up (and then calling Clarke dishonest).

 

[Ban-jani]

But that's the thing, he doesn't have a point.

Noel Clarke and ITV were very clear at the time they didn't fire/let go/replace/release anyone. They brought on some extra people at the bottom rung of the ladder to give them a chance to break into the industry.

So not only was he abusive, but he was making shit up (and then calling Clarke dishonest).

Well then he’s a complete idiot for making this fuss up over nothing and doing himself out of what must have been a very lucrative contract.

Maybe this year has got the best of him and he’s lost it a little, maybe he’s just a dick head usually, who knows but he’ll regret it.

 

[Rascal]

If nothing else this thread has proved beyond doubt it is the left, reading who the posters are and their responses, that is leading the assault on lawful freedom of expression and introducing totalitarianism of thought. It will bite you on the arse one day.

Orwell could see you all a mile off.

There may be an iota of truth in that if we lived in a totalitarian state, but we don't. We live under a functional if not perfect democracy.

Orwell wrote " Totalitarianism has abolished freedom of thought to an extent unheard of in a previous age"

You are confusing the two.

Orwell also wrote that backs this up "The point is the relative freedom which we enjoy depends on public opinion" and "If large numbers are interested in freedom of speech , there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it, if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them"

Orwell furthered this line of thought by writing

"Even those who declare themselves in favour of freedom of opinion generally drop that claim when it is their own adversaries who are being persecuted"

I would argue Orwell saw the need to temper freedom of expression because he saw the inherent dangers it posed when it tilted against public opinion and societal norms unless as he again states "On the platform, or in certain recognised open spaces, like Hyde Park you can say almost anything, and, what is perhaps more significant, no one is frightened to air their opinions in pubs or on the top deck of buses" Here he is in my opinion saying there is a time and a place to express your freedom of speech and expression.

 

[Fame Monster]

Everyone is assuming he's been punished for saying something isn't racist, when it's probably the fact he was extremely abusive towards other high profile professionals whilst making his point.

ITV haven't specified what he's been sacked for. According to the Huffington post, it's for his political views alongside his criticism of Clarke and Olusuga. Given what we've seen people sacked for over the past 12 months, I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption and, if that is the case, then I think that's a really backward step for the rights of employees or contractors to express their political opinions outside of work.

If it is solely the criticism of Olusoga and Clarke then I still don't think he should have been sacked. If you go back 2 years or 5 years or 10 years, I'm sure most of the population have dished out some kind of abuse to public figures on social media at some point (especially judging from how abusive some people get on here!) and I think there needs to be a better mechanism for dealing with this sort of thing rather than instant dismissal and all the effects that has on a person's ability to pay their mortgage/rent/feed their families.

 

[BobKowalski]

ITV haven't specified what he's been sacked for. According to the Huffington post, it's for his political views alongside his criticism of Clarke and Olusuga. Given what we've seen people sacked for over the past 12 months, I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption and, if that is the case, then I think that's a really backward step for the rights of employees or contractors to express their political opinions outside of work.

If it is solely the criticism of Olusoga and Clarke then I still don't think he should have been sacked. If you go back 2 years or 5 years or 10 years, I'm sure most of the population have dished out some kind of abuse to public figures on social media at some point (especially judging from how abusive some people get on here!) and I think there needs to be a better mechanism for dealing with this sort of thing rather than instant dismissal and all the effects that has on a person's ability to pay their mortgage/rent/feed their families.

If he is worried about paying his mortgage or feeding his family, then I suggest he should refrain from being a colossal dick. He has a right to be a colossal dick, he doesn’t have the right to expect people to put up with him being a colossal dick.

Treat people with respect. It isn‘t hard.

 

[meltonblue]

ITV haven't specified what he's been sacked for. According to the Huffington post, it's for his political views alongside his criticism of Clarke and Olusuga. Given what we've seen people sacked for over the past 12 months, I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption and, if that is the case, then I think that's a really backward step for the rights of employees or contractors to express their political opinions outside of work.

If it is solely the criticism of Olusoga and Clarke then I still don't think he should have been sacked. If you go back 2 years or 5 years or 10 years, I'm sure most of the population have dished out some kind of abuse to public figures on social media at some point (especially judging from how abusive some people get on here!) and I think there needs to be a better mechanism for dealing with this sort of thing rather than instant dismissal and all the effects that has on a person's ability to pay their mortgage/rent/feed their families.

It’s not just about expressing what your political views are though, it’s how you express them as well. He works in entertainment as a freelance director. He will, or should, know the importance of brand in that industry. If he chooses to publicly portray himself the way he has, then he should know the potential consequences of it and that expressing his views in the way he has was never going to help his future career prospects unless he’s angling for directing Laurence Fox’s one man stage play or something...

 

[Mon Autre]

ITV haven't specified what he's been sacked for. According to the Huffington post, it's for his political views alongside his criticism of Clarke and Olusuga. Given what we've seen people sacked for over the past 12 months, I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption and, if that is the case, then I think that's a really backward step for the rights of employees or contractors to express their political opinions outside of work.

If it is solely the criticism of Olusoga and Clarke then I still don't think he should have been sacked. If you go back 2 years or 5 years or 10 years, I'm sure most of the population have dished out some kind of abuse to public figures on social media at some point (especially judging from how abusive some people get on here!) and I think there needs to be a better mechanism for dealing with this sort of thing rather than instant dismissal and all the effects that has on a person's ability to pay their mortgage/rent/feed their families.

You say ITV haven't said why they sacked him.

Firstly, he hasn't been sacked. He's freelance. He will have lots of directing jobs and this one won't be inviting him back.

Also, if ITV haven't said why they won't be hiring him again, why is it ok for you to make a "safe assumption" about their reasons in order to back up your argument? The only thing we can 100% conclude from information in the public domain is that this guy is outspoken and abrasive and not very savvy when it comes to keeping his public conduct away from his work life. Those are easily reasons enough alone to not be invited back and it his always been that way.

If you are genuinely bothered about people's political opinions impacting their right to earn an honest living, then we can look back on the thousands of instances going back decades where trade unionists have seen employers illegally gathering files on their activities and their private lives and blacklisting them from being able to get work.

 

[Ban-jani]

I’ve seen many contractors let go for less than that, for nothing political but just for being a bit of a dick.

As a freelance contractor he gets the benefits of being paid a lot but the risk is there that the client can get rid whenever they want and they don’t even have to give a reason.

Calling someone a fucktard would get every single one of my guys, at my clients, dropped immediately.

Just the way it is.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I suspect it's safe to say that he'd lose the dressing room saying things like he did.

Can't imagine the crew being impressed.

 

[Fame Monster]

If he is worried about paying his mortgage or feeding his family, then I suggest he should refrain from being a colossal dick. He has a right to be a colossal dick, he doesn’t have the right to expect people to put up with him being a colossal dick.

Treat people with respect. It isn‘t hard.

He insulted someone because he thought they themselves were being a dick, just like you've done.

If you slagged off this Finn guy on social media and then 3 years later, your boss finds out and says 'sorry not good enough Bob, we're gonna have to let you go', meaning you can only afford one BMW, how would you feel?

 

[urban genie]

You say ITV haven't said why they sacked him.

Firstly, he hasn't been sacked. He's freelance. He will have lots of directing jobs and this one won't be inviting him back.

Also, if ITV haven't said why they won't be hiring him again, why is it ok for you to make a "safe assumption" about their reasons in order to back up your argument? The only thing we can 100% conclude from information in the public domain is that this guy is outspoken and abrasive and not very savvy when it comes to keeping his public conduct away from his work life. Those are easily reasons enough alone to not be invited back and it his always been that way.

If you are genuinely bothered about people's political opinions impacting their right to earn an honest living, then we can look back on the thousands of instances going back decades where trade unionists have seen employers illegally gathering files on their activities and their private lives and blacklisting them from being able to get work.

I am sure FM and everyone else here fully supports all those workers blacklisted for having a certain view or for calling out dangerous workplaces to the HSE.


I mean, as you say there is people daily being denied work for the sole reason that they had an opinion.

Then again their opinion and reasons for being blacklisted don't fit a particular narrative so maybe they are not deemed as important as some gobby director

 

[BobKowalski]

He insulted someone because he thought they themselves were being a dick, just like you've done.

If you slagged off this Finn guy on social media and then 3 years later, your boss finds out and says 'sorry not good enough Bob, we're gonna have to let you go', meaning you can only afford one BMW, how would you feel?

First off, I’m self employed, have been for twenty years. I hire people for projects. If I like the person, they do a good job, are reliable then I hire them again. If they do a good job, but are a pain, be it reliability issues, personality or whatever, then I won’t. I’ve not hired people purely based on their social media posts, I didn’t like what they said or what it said about them.

This is just routine. You want to get hired, don’t be a dick.

Equally, it has worked the other way. People have refused to work for me again because in their view I was rude, obnoxious and a total dick. Sometimes they were right because I can be rude, obnoxious and a total dick.

The fault for this is mine. The consequences for my behaviour are mine. No one owes me a living or a pass for my behaviour and vice versa. No one is giving a fuck about my mortgage, family or BMW (if I had one) if they don‘t like me. I’m bored of people whining about being ‘cancelled’ or ‘not hired’ because they feel they are entitled to a free pass on their views, attitudes or behaviour.

 

[Mon Autre]

He insulted someone because he thought they themselves were being a dick, just like you've done.

If you slagged off this Finn guy on social media and then 3 years later, your boss finds out and says 'sorry not good enough Bob, we're gonna have to let you go', meaning you can only afford one BMW, how would you feel?

You're having a howler today. In your efforts to bend over backwards to defend this guy you've already compared him to a rape victim and are now finding even more nonsensical false equivalences.

 

[Bovril]

First off, I’m self employed, have been for twenty years. I hire people for projects. If I like the person, they do a good job, are reliable then I hire them again. If they do a good job, but are a pain, be it reliability issues, personality or whatever, then I won’t. I’ve not hired people purely based on their social media posts, I didn’t like what they said or what it said about them.

This is just routine. You want to get hired, don’t be a dick.

Equally, it has worked the other way. People have refused to work for me again because in their view I was rude, obnoxious and a total dick. Sometimes they were right because I can be rude, obnoxious and a total dick.

The fault for this is mine. The consequences for my behaviour are mine. No one owes me a living or a pass for my behaviour and vice versa. No one is giving a fuck about my mortgage, family or BMW (if I had one) if they don‘t like me. I’m bored of people whining about being ‘cancelled’ or ‘not hired’ because they feel they are entitled to a free pass on their views, attitudes or behaviour.

I am warming to you Bob, totally agree with the above.

 

[Fame Monster]

You say ITV haven't said why they sacked him.

Firstly, he hasn't been sacked. He's freelance. He will have lots of directing jobs and this one won't be inviting him back.

Also, if ITV haven't said why they won't be hiring him again, why is it ok for you to make a "safe assumption" about their reasons in order to back up your argument? The only thing we can 100% conclude from information in the public domain is that this guy is outspoken and abrasive and not very savvy when it comes to keeping his public conduct away from his work life. Those are easily reasons enough alone to not be invited back and it his always been that way.

If you are genuinely bothered about people's political opinions impacting their right to earn an honest living, then we can look back on the thousands of instances going back decades where trade unionists have seen employers illegally gathering files on their activities and their private lives and blacklisting them from being able to get work.

1. First of all, he has been sacked in most senses of the word. He's not legally an employee (a point I've already acknowledged) because ITV have used a shady employment practice to hire him, and it looks like they've used another shady employment practice to fire him. That's typical worker-boss relations given the scaling back of employment legislation over the past few decades.

2. ITV have said he's been sacked for his comments. They didn't say whether it was his political views or his criticism of Clarke. The Huffington Post broke the story and they seem to have decided it was for both of those reasons so not just the 'fucktard' comment. Either way, I think it's disgraceful that he's been sacked but especially so if the decision is partly informed by the expression of his political views.

3. Yeah we can talk about all those other instances as well if you want whether that's blacklisting, McCarthyism and everything else because I have never been a supporter of an employer's ability to summarily dismiss people for their political views or if they praise or criticise a public figure - something which we all do. I've always been a supporter of an employee's rights to express themselves freely if that expression doesn't affect their ability to do their job and nothing this director has said has affected his ability so there will be no hypocrisy/backtracking from me if someone gets sacked for saying the opposite political opinion.

4. Quite frankly, I'm disgusted and always have been by the support for 'freedom of consequence' and any form of cheerleading for bosses being able to sack people on a whim but as has already been noted by @squirtyflower , there does seem to be a resurgence in those views hence why all those academics signed that letter in the OP.