Manchester Derby (football) racism arrest.
Discussion
stitched said:
I wasn’t condoning his alleged behaviour,
I was questioning the involvement of his employer given that it wasn’t a corporate stand and he didn’t appear to be wearing work clothing.
The only people who are endangering his company are the online sleuthing press, banned on here for some reason, who have identified his employer.
Not comfortable with this.
It doesn’t take much when he’s stated it on his Facebook page which is freely available to everyone. I was questioning the involvement of his employer given that it wasn’t a corporate stand and he didn’t appear to be wearing work clothing.
The only people who are endangering his company are the online sleuthing press, banned on here for some reason, who have identified his employer.
Not comfortable with this.
How comfortable are you with people being sacked for drink driving? Quite often the company is named when there’s a report in the press of this. What about the lorry driver who kills a family in a crash?
Keoparakolo said:
Thankyou4calling said:
Where am I trying to justify someone being racist? As for the tough guy! Don’t be so judgemental pal.
In the post I quote below. It’s the most thinly veiled defence possible, without actually explicitly defending him. I’m not your pal either.
Thankyou4calling said:
Yep will definitely be cancelling contracts with Keir because of this.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
You were however advocating his dismissal from a company who he didn’t bring into disrepute.
This is not imho in line with uk employment law.
Not that I’d know anything about that.
Sorry, I forgot the epithet, would snowflake suit?
stitched said:
Keoparakolo said:
Thankyou4calling said:
Where am I trying to justify someone being racist? As for the tough guy! Don’t be so judgemental pal.
In the post I quote below. It’s the most thinly veiled defence possible, without actually explicitly defending him. I’m not your pal either.
Thankyou4calling said:
Yep will definitely be cancelling contracts with Keir because of this.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
You were however advocating his dismissal from a company who he didn’t bring into disrepute.
This is not imho in line with uk employment law.
Not that I’d know anything about that.
Sorry, I forgot the epithet, would snowflake suit?
In this case, had the employee done the same thing at work, the outcome would be obvious. By extension, the investigation will likely conclude doing this outside of work is also sufficient grounds for dismissal, but at this stage, that is under investigation.
Keoparakolo said:
stitched said:
I wasn’t condoning his alleged behaviour,
I was questioning the involvement of his employer given that it wasn’t a corporate stand and he didn’t appear to be wearing work clothing.
The only people who are endangering his company are the online sleuthing press, banned on here for some reason, who have identified his employer.
Not comfortable with this.
It doesn’t take much when he’s stated it on his Facebook page which is freely available to everyone. I was questioning the involvement of his employer given that it wasn’t a corporate stand and he didn’t appear to be wearing work clothing.
The only people who are endangering his company are the online sleuthing press, banned on here for some reason, who have identified his employer.
Not comfortable with this.
How comfortable are you with people being sacked for drink driving? Quite often the company is named when there’s a report in the press of this. What about the lorry driver who kills a family in a crash?
stitched said:
If he drives for a living then perfectly comfortable, if however he sells derivatives WTF does it have to do whit his employer?
If his contract states he can be dismissed for it, or they believe it comes under the disrepute clause then they can. Doesn’t matter what his role is. No views on the lorry driver example?
Digga said:
stitched said:
Keoparakolo said:
Thankyou4calling said:
Where am I trying to justify someone being racist? As for the tough guy! Don’t be so judgemental pal.
In the post I quote below. It’s the most thinly veiled defence possible, without actually explicitly defending him. I’m not your pal either.
Thankyou4calling said:
Yep will definitely be cancelling contracts with Keir because of this.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
You were however advocating his dismissal from a company who he didn’t bring into disrepute.
This is not imho in line with uk employment law.
Not that I’d know anything about that.
Sorry, I forgot the epithet, would snowflake suit?
In this case, had the employee done the same thing at work, the outcome would be obvious. By extension, the investigation will likely conclude doing this outside of work is also sufficient grounds for dismissal, but at this stage, that is under investigation.
What we’re looking at now is a, probably racist pissed up idiot, on his day off being sacked.
By all means ban him from football grounds if found guilty but to dismiss from employment is just wrong.
stitched said:
By all means ban him from football grounds if found guilty but to dismiss from employment is just wrong.
I'll speak plainly here.Given his conduct, why should any black colleague have to work with him? Setting aside the distaste of such conduct that is likely in many non-BAME colleagues.
Keoparakolo said:
stitched said:
If he drives for a living then perfectly comfortable, if however he sells derivatives WTF does it have to do whit his employer?
If his contract states he can be dismissed for it, or they believe it comes under the disrepute clause then they can. Doesn’t matter what his role is. No views on the lorry driver example?
If a lorry driver falls below the standard we expect of drivers in this country they should expect their career to be at threat.
However if a computer analyst gets done for smoking pot, how is their employer involved, other than their in house drugs policy.
Digga said:
stitched said:
By all means ban him from football grounds if found guilty but to dismiss from employment is just wrong.
I'll speak plainly here.Given his conduct, why should any black colleague have to work with him? Setting aside the distaste of such conduct that is likely in many non-BAME colleagues.
It’s a workplace ffs.
stitched said:
Digga said:
stitched said:
By all means ban him from football grounds if found guilty but to dismiss from employment is just wrong.
I'll speak plainly here.Given his conduct, why should any black colleague have to work with him? Setting aside the distaste of such conduct that is likely in many non-BAME colleagues.
It’s a workplace ffs.
As I said HR is a minefield.
stitched said:
Keoparakolo said:
stitched said:
I wasn’t condoning his alleged behaviour,
I was questioning the involvement of his employer given that it wasn’t a corporate stand and he didn’t appear to be wearing work clothing.
The only people who are endangering his company are the online sleuthing press, banned on here for some reason, who have identified his employer.
Not comfortable with this.
It doesn’t take much when he’s stated it on his Facebook page which is freely available to everyone. I was questioning the involvement of his employer given that it wasn’t a corporate stand and he didn’t appear to be wearing work clothing.
The only people who are endangering his company are the online sleuthing press, banned on here for some reason, who have identified his employer.
Not comfortable with this.
How comfortable are you with people being sacked for drink driving? Quite often the company is named when there’s a report in the press of this. What about the lorry driver who kills a family in a crash?
Pothole said:
stitched said:
Keoparakolo said:
stitched said:
I wasn’t condoning his alleged behaviour,
I was questioning the involvement of his employer given that it wasn’t a corporate stand and he didn’t appear to be wearing work clothing.
The only people who are endangering his company are the online sleuthing press, banned on here for some reason, who have identified his employer.
Not comfortable with this.
It doesn’t take much when he’s stated it on his Facebook page which is freely available to everyone. I was questioning the involvement of his employer given that it wasn’t a corporate stand and he didn’t appear to be wearing work clothing.
The only people who are endangering his company are the online sleuthing press, banned on here for some reason, who have identified his employer.
Not comfortable with this.
How comfortable are you with people being sacked for drink driving? Quite often the company is named when there’s a report in the press of this. What about the lorry driver who kills a family in a crash?
stitched said:
I work for a German multinational company, coincidentally I hold a CIPD qualification, if my firm tried to dismiss me for behaviour outside work with nothing tying me to the company then I would, quite rightly imho, take them to the cleaners.
What about if you where caught doing a Nazi salute?stitched said:
Keoparakolo said:
Thankyou4calling said:
Where am I trying to justify someone being racist? As for the tough guy! Don’t be so judgemental pal.
In the post I quote below. It’s the most thinly veiled defence possible, without actually explicitly defending him. I’m not your pal either.
Thankyou4calling said:
Yep will definitely be cancelling contracts with Keir because of this.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
You were however advocating his dismissal from a company who he didn’t bring into disrepute.
This is not imho in line with uk employment law.
Not that I’d know anything about that.
Sorry, I forgot the epithet, would snowflake suit?
If he is found guilty of the racism he’s accused of and charged then I’d say good on his employer for sacking them, his actions have ended up getting their company in the National Press associated with an ‘alleged’ racist.
It is perfectly inline with employment Law if it is in his contract and these kind of clauses are very common.
Pothole said:
Many, if not most, employers have a code of conduct built into employment contracts.
Yep, if an employee at my place was in similar situation then their contract could be terminated under gross misconduct for 'bringing the company into serious disrepute'. Suspect that it would probably go to tribunal if they were fired but the cover for the employer is there.It's detailed in the contract and employee handbook - it's a 20 person engineering firm not something like Kier who will have armies of HR, corporate lawyers, marketing etc.
I believe this guy will be fired or, at best for him, a compromise agreement will be negotiated.
Keoparakolo said:
stitched said:
Sorry if I’m being a bit thick.
WTF is his employer to do with this?
He wasn’t exactly wearing a work shirt or staying in a corporate box, if guilty of racist gestures then ban him from the sport by all means, prosecute if appropriate.
But really, sack him for poor behaviour on a day off?
Their name has been dragged through the press and associated with him and his actions. Most companies have a statement in the contract about bringing the company name into disrepute, whether it’s sufficient misconduct to warrant dismissal is yet to be seen. I think it will be though. WTF is his employer to do with this?
He wasn’t exactly wearing a work shirt or staying in a corporate box, if guilty of racist gestures then ban him from the sport by all means, prosecute if appropriate.
But really, sack him for poor behaviour on a day off?
Edited by ChevyChase77 on Wednesday 11th December 12:41
stitched said:
Digga said:
stitched said:
Keoparakolo said:
Thankyou4calling said:
Where am I trying to justify someone being racist? As for the tough guy! Don’t be so judgemental pal.
In the post I quote below. It’s the most thinly veiled defence possible, without actually explicitly defending him. I’m not your pal either.
Thankyou4calling said:
Yep will definitely be cancelling contracts with Keir because of this.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
You were however advocating his dismissal from a company who he didn’t bring into disrepute.
This is not imho in line with uk employment law.
Not that I’d know anything about that.
Sorry, I forgot the epithet, would snowflake suit?
In this case, had the employee done the same thing at work, the outcome would be obvious. By extension, the investigation will likely conclude doing this outside of work is also sufficient grounds for dismissal, but at this stage, that is under investigation.
What we’re looking at now is a, probably racist pissed up idiot, on his day off being sacked.
By all means ban him from football grounds if found guilty but to dismiss from employment is just wrong.
stitched said:
Pothole said:
stitched said:
Keoparakolo said:
stitched said:
I wasn’t condoning his alleged behaviour,
I was questioning the involvement of his employer given that it wasn’t a corporate stand and he didn’t appear to be wearing work clothing.
The only people who are endangering his company are the online sleuthing press, banned on here for some reason, who have identified his employer.
Not comfortable with this.
It doesn’t take much when he’s stated it on his Facebook page which is freely available to everyone. I was questioning the involvement of his employer given that it wasn’t a corporate stand and he didn’t appear to be wearing work clothing.
The only people who are endangering his company are the online sleuthing press, banned on here for some reason, who have identified his employer.
Not comfortable with this.
How comfortable are you with people being sacked for drink driving? Quite often the company is named when there’s a report in the press of this. What about the lorry driver who kills a family in a crash?
chrispmartha said:
stitched said:
Digga said:
stitched said:
Keoparakolo said:
Thankyou4calling said:
Where am I trying to justify someone being racist? As for the tough guy! Don’t be so judgemental pal.
In the post I quote below. It’s the most thinly veiled defence possible, without actually explicitly defending him. I’m not your pal either.
Thankyou4calling said:
Yep will definitely be cancelling contracts with Keir because of this.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
You were however advocating his dismissal from a company who he didn’t bring into disrepute.
This is not imho in line with uk employment law.
Not that I’d know anything about that.
Sorry, I forgot the epithet, would snowflake suit?
In this case, had the employee done the same thing at work, the outcome would be obvious. By extension, the investigation will likely conclude doing this outside of work is also sufficient grounds for dismissal, but at this stage, that is under investigation.
What we’re looking at now is a, probably racist pissed up idiot, on his day off being sacked.
By all means ban him from football grounds if found guilty but to dismiss from employment is just wrong.
ChevyChase77 said:
chrispmartha said:
stitched said:
Digga said:
stitched said:
Keoparakolo said:
Thankyou4calling said:
Where am I trying to justify someone being racist? As for the tough guy! Don’t be so judgemental pal.
In the post I quote below. It’s the most thinly veiled defence possible, without actually explicitly defending him. I’m not your pal either.
Thankyou4calling said:
Yep will definitely be cancelling contracts with Keir because of this.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
NOT!
It makes not a blind bit of difference. It’s virtue signalling. Oooooh look at us, aren’t we socially aware to suspend this nasty man.
Pathetic.
You were however advocating his dismissal from a company who he didn’t bring into disrepute.
This is not imho in line with uk employment law.
Not that I’d know anything about that.
Sorry, I forgot the epithet, would snowflake suit?
In this case, had the employee done the same thing at work, the outcome would be obvious. By extension, the investigation will likely conclude doing this outside of work is also sufficient grounds for dismissal, but at this stage, that is under investigation.
What we’re looking at now is a, probably racist pissed up idiot, on his day off being sacked.
By all means ban him from football grounds if found guilty but to dismiss from employment is just wrong.
Nice Squirrel though.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff