A letter on justice and open debate.

No. I'm arguing they should have the right to not hire someone who has been causing a stink by publicly launching personal attacks and bad mouthing other professionals. Nobody has been sacked.

This guy has been working for ITV for 2 years now. He's not an unlucky job applicant, he's someone who has been dismissed partly because of his political views. His employment status might mean he's technically got no employment rights but by most senses of the word, he's been sacked/dismissed/fired.
 
The quote from ITV said something like 'we've seen his posts and he's therefore been dismissed' and the Huffington Post exclusive claimed his political views played a role too.
It’s all supposition in that case. As others have said, it’s just as likely that it was his disparaging comments about industry peers that resulted in Granada no longer contracting him.
 
Another example of someone being sacked for their political views - this time from Corrie.

Freedom of speech has taken an absolute battering in UK society over the past 12 month and it's long overdue for a change in legislation e.g. a free speech act, to guarantee people their livelihoods irrespective of what political opinion they hold (bar some very extreme exceptions).
You don't give any examples of this and you haven't indicated what you cannot say or what you want to say but feel you can not.
There's lots of reasons but among other things, while I generally believe in the right to offend, some forms of offence are so serious that I think the state should intervene.
Such as?, because your right to offend maybe different to somebody else's and what forms of offence are so serious that the state should intervene?
When people say they support 'freedom of speech', very rarely do they mean there should be no laws whatsoever regulating speech. Some people just think there should be more free speech than others.
Squirty stated that the left are closing down free speech and used Orwellian in his post, which i refuted using Orwell's own writings.

What speech are the left closing down and if this is the case is it not also true that the right are also closing down speech.

How much free speech do you actually want?
 
This as a very old chestnut.

Think on this, the campaign for nuclear disarmament wants this country to abandon nuclear weapons, the "reasonable" folk say that's foolish, they prefer multilateral nuclear disarmament, which will never happen, therefore we continue to have nuclear weapons. The multilateral nuclear disarmers, in any practical sense, might as well be pro nuclear for all the good they do, because the end result is we continue to have nuclear weapons. It gets to a point where pro nuclear folk and multilateral disarmers are, to all extents and purposes indistinguishable, because despite their differences the outcome is the same.

Discrimination exists, you accept that. If we discount rich white blokes, I'm sure you and I can think of any number of groups with a legitimate axe to grind. What I cannot think of is any discriminated group that has not had to engage in some form of protest to get what they want and I struggle to think of any group that succeeded by widening their grievance net to encompass every downtrodden group in society. In fact those that oppose the aims of a particular discriminated group deliberately widen the grievance pot to confuse the issue to ensure nothing gets done. So Black Lives Matter becomes All Lives Matter, the motives of the movement are questioned, us and them lines drawn, culture wars stoked and no brainer basic assumptions questioned. Initial sympathy begins to slowly drain away, momentum lost and the issue fizzles out, usually with a prolonged enquiry, delivered quietly long after the fire has burned out.

So with all this distrust and noises off, it's important to see things for what they are.

The BLM movement has exposed two major players. Racists in our society who want racist and discriminatory practices to continue. And reasonable, predominately white folk, who don't consider themselves racist and do not display racism in their daily lives, but feel uneasy about BLM and their motives. These reasonable folk feel uncomfortable about some of the changes that BLM are demanding, they question the assumptions that BLM are making and suspect this might end up as a zero sum game, with them losing out.

So these reasonable non racist folk muddy the waters, obfuscate, engage in whataboutery, all with the best intentions you understand, and just like the multilateral nuclear disarmers being indistinguishable, in any practical sense, from the pro nuclear crowd, the non racist reasonable folk might as well be Tommy Robinson for all the good they do, because nothing changes.
Excellent
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.