Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
I do mate. A lot of others won't though. They'll only condemn the practice if it's someone with the same view as them. It's an extremely nasty, Stalinistic intolerance for dissenting views.
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.
I do mate. A lot of others won't though. They'll only condemn the practice if it's someone with the same view as them. It's an extremely nasty, Stalinistic intolerance for dissenting views.
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.
It's pretty astonishing that someone could speak with so much conviction about something they have such little understanding of. How have you come to the conclusion that ITV used shady employment practices to hire him? Are you familiar with how the television industry works?
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
It's pretty astonishing that someone could speak with so much conviction about something they have such little understanding of. How have you come to the conclusion that ITV used shady employment practices to hire him? Are you familiar with how the television industry works?
From my experience, there's an awful lot of businesses that use agency workers or freelancers to get around having to employ people. Maybe in this instance the arrangement was mutually beneficial and not an avenue to get around giving the director his employment rights and job security but either way, in the context of this thread and the debate about freedom of speech, I'm more concerned about the ethics of firing someone for their political opinions than debating the wider employment practices of the TV industry.
From my experience, there's an awful lot of businesses that use agency workers or freelancers to get around having to employ people. Maybe in this instance the arrangement was mutually beneficial and not an avenue to get around giving the director his employment rights and job security but either way, in the context of this thread and the debate about freedom of speech, I'm more concerned about the ethics of firing someone for their political opinions than debating the wider employment practices of the TV industry.
If you're not concerned about employment practices of the TV industry then don't comment on them then as a means of bashing ITV of exercising their freedom to not hire someone who has behaved like a total twat. Absolutely nothing questionable at all about hiring crew in this way on TV productions. And also nothing weird about not rehiring them if they haven't been great to work with.
Rascal
El Presidente
You have said a lot about this subject.From my experience, there's an awful lot of businesses that use agency workers or freelancers to get around having to employ people. Maybe in this instance the arrangement was mutually beneficial and not an avenue to get around giving the director his employment rights and job security but either way, in the context of this thread and the debate about freedom of speech, I'm more concerned about the ethics of firing someone for their political opinions than debating the wider employment practices of the TV industry.
Do you believe in the absolute right to freedom of speech.
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
You have said a lot about this subject.
Do you believe in the absolute right to freedom of speech.
No
Rascal
El Presidente
Why not?
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
If you're not concerned about employment practices of the TV industry then don't comment on them then as a means of bashing ITV of exercising their freedom to not hire someone who has behaved like a total twat. Absolutely nothing questionable at all about hiring crew in this way on TV productions. And also nothing weird about not rehiring them if they haven't been great to work with.
No you didn't read my post properly. I said I'm less concerned about those practices on a thread where the focus is on freedom of speech. You think ITV should have the freedom to sack someone for their political views but as I've already said, that opinion disgusts me, always has done and always will do (although I wouldn't want you to lose your job for it) and I think we need better employment legislation or a Freedom of Speech Act to guard against that. You disagree, that's fine but let's not waste our time discussing the minutiae of wider industry practices secondary to the thread.
No you didn't read my post properly. I said I'm less concerned about those practices on a thread where the focus is on freedom of speech. You think ITV should have the freedom to sack someone for their political views but as I've already said, that opinion disgusts me, always has done and always will do (although I wouldn't want you to lose your job for it) and I think we need better employment legislation or a Freedom of Speech Act to guard against that. You disagree, that's fine but let's not waste our time discussing the minutiae of wider industry practices secondary to the thread.
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.
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
Why 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.
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.
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
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.
Is there any actual evidence to back that up?he's someone who has been dismissed partly because of his political views
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
Is there any actual evidence to back that up?
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.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.
Rascal
El Presidente
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.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).
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?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.
Squirty stated that the left are closing down free speech and used Orwellian in his post, which i refuted using Orwell's own writings.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.
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?
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
ExcellentThis 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.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Yoga classes aren’t cheap.Flexibility has a price.