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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
He’s really got no complaints about being let go based on that.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.
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 6,608
He has got freedom of speech, and people have the freedom to choose whether to work with him or not.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,017
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.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.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.
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).
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.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).
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
El Presidente
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.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.
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 20,218
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.