Women

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:51 pm

Bosscat wrote:The Egyptians had a Falcon headed god.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ooh I can see Ringo's posts if someone else quotes him. I wasn't far off then in my guesswork.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:55 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Eh?

Did you even understand what the #metoo movement was about?

Furthering the careers of female actresses surely ?

Longside4evr · Post by **Longside4evr** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:03 pm

I remember paint being called Nigger brown
And in Spain even now the word for black is Negro
noun
1.
a member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to Africa south of the Sahara.
adjective
1.
relating to black people.
You just cant use this talk anymore
Same wirh the gollywog money box or dolls

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:04 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You did. No one else. Like all Gods you completely made it up.

Falcon - " I believe in free speech and defend the right for people to express themselves freely. Just run it by me first. OK!?"

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:22 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Falcon - " I believe in free speech and defend the right for people to express themselves freely. Just run it by me first. OK!?"

Did you just fabricate a quote to justify your belief that Falcon has declared him or herself the god of free speech? After being reminded that gods aren't real.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:27 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Did you just fabricate a quote to justify your belief that Falcon has declared him or herself the god of free speech? After being reminded that gods aren't real.

Just reflecting what our resident word policeman sounds like when he says what is and isn't acceptable. In a light hearted way. That's all.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:27 pm

Falcon wrote:Yes as long as the word powerful doesn't become an insulting term.

Like this......

M'lud.

lostinthegame · Post by **lostinthegame** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:28 pm

Chill out guys, maybe the tide is turning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46622772" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:31 pm

lostinthegame wrote:Chill out guys, maybe the tide is turning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46622772" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You mean by applying EXISTING LAWS it turns out men aren't the oppressed little snowflakes that pussies make them out to be? Shock horror!

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:34 pm

Not sure why a male would want to go to said festival anyway

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:47 pm

tim_noone wrote:Misandry....?

I miss Andy too he was a good egg....

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:52 pm

Chip Harrison wrote:Good old banter eh! I can be racist, but if I think its funny, its fine.

So what you are saying is if someone decides something is racist, despite the fact that the supposed 'victim' feels no offence whatsoever, it is still racist? What a skewed view of the world you have. What gives anyone the right to be offended on behalf of others who in themselves don't feel that offence. What utter arrogance.

Do you think that I am racist because I see no harm in humour intending no offence or banter between people of different races who take no offence in it, despite the fact that I have spent most of my adult life opposing racism, real racism, that hurts and incites violence? The real racists in this world are the ones who see offence when there is none intended, the same ones who are obviously always thinking about it and trying to tell others the way to think and act. A real racist is a person who always thinks about it and who is always on the defensive on someone else's behalf because they are so condesending towards those people that they think they can't speak and act for themselves. If you really had respect for these people you wouldn't stand up and defend them if they don't want defending, that is like trying to defend a child and these people are not children. Treat them as grown ups and stop being racist by proxy.

A typical, off-the-cuff comment that is meant to be sarcastic but fails miserably and just shows an incapability to think things through.

lostinthegame · Post by **lostinthegame** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:54 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You mean by applying EXISTING LAWS it turns out men aren't the oppressed little snowflakes that pussies make them out to be? Shock horror!

No, I'm on the left myself but I want to disassociate myself from double-standards crap like that which gives us a bad name (usually "snowflakes", "SJWs" or "the PC brigade") and cheapens our cause. You know the kind, people who genuinely come out with things like "Stop using anti-animal language, say bringing home the bagels" and "It's impossible to be racist to white people" (tell that to people from Nelson.)

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:02 pm

In fairness to IT, I don't think he is of that ilk.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:06 pm

lostinthegame wrote:No, I'm on the left myself but I want to disassociate myself from double-standards crap like that which gives us a bad name (usually "snowflakes", "SJWs" or "the PC brigade") and cheapens our cause. You know the kind, people who genuinely come out with things like "Stop using anti-animal language, say bringing home the bagels" and "It's impossible to be racist to white people" (tell that to people from Nelson.)

I get confused as to why some people, mainly on the right but those who also think themselves 'real men', use the term snowflake. It has become a strangely fashionable term similar to 'whatever' a few years ago. Probably used by those who don't have the vocabulary to be original. It also seems to be aimed mainly at people (male) who actually appear to care about things.
By the way a snowflake is, by it's very nature, both totally unique and very beautiful.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:11 pm

houseboy wrote:I get confused as to why some people, mainly on the right but those who also think themselves 'real men', use the term snowflake. It has become a strangely fashionable term similar to 'whatever' a few years ago. Probably used by those who don't have the vocabulary to be original. It also seems to be aimed mainly at people (male) who actually appear to care about things.
By the way a snowflake is, by it's very nature, both totally unique and very beautiful.

I've even seen it written in headlines of certain newspapers

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:16 pm

Falcon wrote:I've even seen it written in headlines of certain newspapers

It's the 'sheep' syndrome mate. A word becomes popular and everyone starts using it without knowing what the hell the connotations are.

Just wondering, was it the Sun you saw the headline in? It would kind of follow the ethos of the publication, you know, they are good at taking up something that has become popular with the common man and running with it.

Chip Harrison · Post by **Chip Harrison** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:34 pm

houseboy wrote:So what you are saying is if someone decides something is racist, despite the fact that the supposed 'victim' feels no offence whatsoever, it is still racist? What a skewed view of the world you have. What gives anyone the right to be offended on behalf of others who in themselves don't feel that offence. What utter arrogance.

Do you think that I am racist because I see no harm in humour intending no offence or banter between people of different races who take no offence in it, despite the fact that I have spent most of my adult life opposing racism, real racism, that hurts and incites violence? The real racists in this world are the ones who see offence when there is none intended, the same ones who are obviously always thinking about it and trying to tell others the way to think and act. A real racist is a person who always thinks about it and who is always on the defensive on someone else's behalf because they are so condesending towards those people that they think they can't speak and act for themselves. If you really had respect for these people you wouldn't stand up and defend them if they don't want defending, that is like trying to defend a child and these people are not children. Treat them as grown ups and stop being racist by proxy.

A typical, off-the-cuff comment that is meant to be sarcastic but fails miserably and just shows an incapability to think things through.

Thanks for the bluster, but here you are from the ACAS website on how the women in your office was harassed by you! make sure you know the law before you get too offended.

Harassment

Harassment may include bullying behaviour, and it refers to bad treatment that is related to a protected characteristic, such as age, sex, disability, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

More specifically, the law defines it as 'unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual.'

It can include behaviour that individuals find offensive even if it's not directed at them, and even if they do not have the relevant protected characteristics themselves.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:35 pm

houseboy wrote: By the way a snowflake is, by it's very nature, both totally unique and very beautiful.

Though they rarely hang about very long and frequently melt before even hitting the ground .

In fairness HB it’s mainly used against the very easily offended ( and those who go out of their way to be)and those those who seem perpetually angered by not being born with a vagina

duncandisorderly · Post by **duncandisorderly** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:45 pm

AlargeClaret wrote:Though they rarely hang about very long and frequently melt before even hitting the ground .

In fairness HB it’s mainly used against the very easily offended ( and those who go out of their way to be)and those those who seem perpetually angered by not being born with a vagina

Everyone is born with a vagina. Except those who are born via caesarian and cloning.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:54 pm

Chip Harrison wrote:Thanks for the bluster, but here you are from the ACAS website on how the women in your office was harassed by you! make sure you know the law before you get too offended.

Harassment

Harassment may include bullying behaviour, and it refers to bad treatment that is related to a protected characteristic, such as age, sex, disability, race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

More specifically, the law defines it as 'unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual.'

It can include behaviour that individuals find offensive even if it's not directed at them, and even if they do not have the relevant protected characteristics themselves.

Ha ha. My time in employment law has been lost on me. It seems that asking a question of friends in an office environment by way of a quick survey is now 'harrasment'. Point one: nowhere in your pointless post does it say asking a question generally of a group of people is in any way harrasment. You lose.
Point two: I have just 'harrased' them again asking if they feel harrased at what I did, citing your post as the reason. They laughed at your stupidity. You lose.

Oh and by the way learn to use correct grammar when trying to argue. The women in my office are a group not a singular therefore the correct term should have been 'were' not 'was'.

You lose.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:58 pm

AlargeClaret wrote:Though they rarely hang about very long and frequently melt before even hitting the ground .

In fairness HB it’s mainly used against the very easily offended ( and those who go out of their way to be)and those those who seem perpetually angered by not being born with a vagina

Agree totally mate, I just don't like the term. It grates on me like the awful, now slightly out of fashion, 'whatever', which was almost exclusively used by people with no argument (which is why it was common with teenagers).

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:59 pm

houseboy wrote:It's the 'sheep' syndrome mate. A word becomes popular and everyone starts using it without knowing what the hell the connotations are.

Just wondering, was it the Sun you saw the headline in? It would kind of follow the ethos of the publication, you know, they are good at taking up something that has become popular with the common man and running with it.

I couldn't say with any certainty as it was a few days ago on BBC News's 'papers front page roundup' bit. It was one of the red tops.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:02 pm

Totally off topic but “ stay classy” grates on me . Used by people ( generally women) with literally no idea of the irony !

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:32 pm

Falcon wrote:I couldn't say with any certainty as it was a few days ago on BBC News's 'papers front page roundup' bit. It was one of the red tops.

The Sun then, ha ha. I do find it interesting in a way that certain words or phrases gain common usage. Whilst trying to avoid such 'cliche' type terms I must admit (and I'm concious of it too) to using the term 'anytime soon'. I don't know why but I quite like it and it does the job (and it's not dismissive or insulting).

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:35 pm

I really dislike 'virtue signaller' and 'gammon' used as insults. Chucking labels on people (especially disparaging ones) always devalues anyone's argument.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:37 pm

houseboy wrote:Ha ha. My time in employment law has been lost on me. It seems that asking a question of friends in an office environment by way of a quick survey is now 'harrasment'. Point one: nowhere in your pointless post does it say asking a question generally of a group of people is in any way harrasment. You lose.
Point two: I have just 'harrased' them again asking if they feel harrased at what I did, citing your post as the reason. They laughed at your stupidity. You lose.

Oh and by the way learn to use correct grammar when trying to argue. The women in my office are a group not a singular therefore the correct term should have been 'were' not 'was'.

You lose.

Do the women you work with get ****** off that you seem to do no work and spend all your time posting on a messageboard and conducting surveys?

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:42 pm

Yeah but then I get a lot of free time. I earn what I deserve, which is why I struggle to pay the mortgage.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:58 pm

Having carried out a third survey (yes I am finishing for Christmas today) it appears that the ladies in my office (is 'ladies' an acceptable term these days or have the guardians of our morality deemed it 'inappropriate') said they like my surveys, they consider it a great honour to be actually asked their opinion instead of people jumping to their defence when they haven't asked for it. It may seem odd to some people but they actually know their own mind and would appreciate it if people allowed them to be offended of their own accord.

Merry Christmas to all and sundry. Any input on here for the forseeable may be a bit scant (hooray I hear you all say) but my father-in-law is about to shuffle off this mortal coil in the next day or two so I will be a little 'busy'. If I don't reply to you (friend or foe

) please accept my apologies in advance.

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:20 pm

houseboy wrote:Having carried out a third survey (yes I am finishing for Christmas today) it appears that the ladies in my office (is 'ladies' an acceptable term these days or have the guardians of our morality deemed it 'inappropriate') said they like my surveys, they consider it a great honour to be actually asked their opinion instead of people jumping to their defence when they haven't asked for it. It may seem odd to some people but they actually know their own mind and would appreciate it if people allowed them to be offended of their own accord.

Merry Christmas to all and sundry. Any input on here for the forseeable may be a bit scant (hooray I hear you all say) but my father-in-law is about to shuffle off this mortal coil in the next day or two so I will be a little 'busy'. If I don't reply to you (friend or foe ) please accept my apologies in advance.

Thoughts with you and yours House .....
All the seasons usuals to you and yours.....

Squarepusher · Post by **Squarepusher** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:29 pm

I must admit, I'm pretty jealous. I wish I had time at work to go round conducting weird surveys.

Siddo · Post by **Siddo** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:38 pm

houseboy wrote:Ha ha. My time in employment law has been lost on me. It seems that asking a question of friends in an office environment by way of a quick survey is now 'harrasment'. Point one: nowhere in your pointless post does it say asking a question generally of a group of people is in any way harrasment. You lose.
Point two: I have just 'harrased' them again asking if they feel harrased at what I did, citing your post as the reason. They laughed at your stupidity. You lose.

Oh and by the way learn to use correct grammar when trying to argue. The women in my office are a group not a singular therefore the correct term should have been 'were' not 'was'.

You lose.

Really interesting debate between you and Chip HB.
I also work in HR and have dealt with a very similar issue to the scenario Chip alludes to. Employment law is a wonderful subject and don't ever think that it is similar to any common sense approach to issues, because it isn't.
His clip from ACAS is correct, but it doesn't look like it applies in your situation.
Have we gone too far with ensuring that we don't cause offence to anybody and everyone? Maybe so, but it is a minefield and I would always warn employees about "banter".

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:58 pm

houseboy.. are you a fan of free speech and expression?

Have I got that right, did I read it on here..
or was it someone else..?

cheers.

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:06 pm

Cool thread, a load of men deciding what women want and how they should be talked to. Bet they'll be thrilled to hear what we come up with.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:31 pm

houseboy wrote:So what you are saying is if someone decides something is racist, despite the fact that the supposed 'victim' feels no offence whatsoever, it is still racist? What a skewed view of the world you have. What gives anyone the right to be offended on behalf of others who in themselves don't feel that offence. What utter arrogance.

Do you think that I am racist because I see no harm in humour intending no offence or banter between people of different races who take no offence in it, despite the fact that I have spent most of my adult life opposing racism, real racism, that hurts and incites violence? The real racists in this world are the ones who see offence when there is none intended, the same ones who are obviously always thinking about it and trying to tell others the way to think and act. A real racist is a person who always thinks about it and who is always on the defensive on someone else's behalf because they are so condesending towards those people that they think they can't speak and act for themselves. If you really had respect for these people you wouldn't stand up and defend them if they don't want defending, that is like trying to defend a child and these people are not children. Treat them as grown ups and stop being racist by proxy.

A typical, off-the-cuff comment that is meant to be sarcastic but fails miserably and just shows an incapability to think things through.

Yep. The real racists are the people who take offence when you use racist language in their vicinity. /s

Seriously, though, if you and your friend use whatever language you like in private (eg emails and text messages between the two of you, or when you are alone), that’s fine, imo. If you do so when others can overhear you such as in an office environment, that’s unacceptable.

You don’t need to be part of the minority that your “humorous banter” is aimed at to be allowed to be offended by it. I’m very much on the side of your offended female colleague in this situation.

Claretpants · Post by **Claretpants** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:13 pm

tim_noone wrote:Stupid man would be permitted....#me to is very anti men which seems acceptable these days. Spin it round and there's uproar.

‘Man up’ you woman

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:15 am

Claretpants wrote:‘Man up’ you woman

Bitch!

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:01 am

If he had any balls at all he would have owned it, she is a stupid woman. Sadly that would have had those behind on the back benches spinning in their knickers.
The pc brigade has a lot to answer for, but if we allow them to dictate the debate, we can only blame ourselves. Far too few people in the spotlight, or in the media, fight for the right to talk down about an individual, without turning it into a racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic slur.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:58 am

Falcon wrote:I've blocked Ringo. I assume he's making a weird point irrelevant to the discussion that suits his warped worldview.

#metoo

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 1:48 pm

Greenmile wrote:Yep. The real racists are the people who take offence when you use racist language in their vicinity. /s

Seriously, though, if you and your friend use whatever language you like in private (eg emails and text messages between the two of you, or when you are alone), that’s fine, imo. If you do so when others can overhear you such as in an office environment, that’s unacceptable.

You don’t need to be part of the minority that your “humorous banter” is aimed at to be allowed to be offended by it. I’m very much on the side of your offended female colleague in this situation.

Hi Green. Haven’t much time sorry but I feel I need to answer this. The fact is the finer feelings of the sensitive if they overhear a private conversation between two consenting adults is of no consequence to me. It wasn’t aimed at her, it had nothing to do with her and she was simply being offended on behalf of someone who didn’t give a toss. It is this whole attitude of being ‘offended’ that p!sses people (including me). The whole world is obsessed by not causing offence to the point where freedom of speech is in serious danger and that freedom is more important than the finer feelings of the easily offended.

Siddo · Post by **Siddo** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:00 pm

houseboy wrote:Hi Green. Haven’t much time sorry but I feel I need to answer this. The fact is the finer feelings of the sensitive if they overhear a private conversation between two consenting adults is of no consequence to me. It wasn’t aimed at her, it had nothing to do with her and she was simply being offended on behalf of someone who didn’t give a toss. It is this whole attitude of being ‘offended’ that p!sses people (including me). The whole world is obsessed by not causing offence to the point where freedom of speech is in serious danger and that freedom is more important than the finer feelings of the easily offended.

However, she heard it and was offended by it. Therefore to the letter of the law, like it or not, you are deemed to be harassing her.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:22 pm

dsr wrote:I bet if that Chelsea yobbo had directed his foul abuse at Sterling without using the word "black", we wouldn't have heard a dicky bird about it. Using gender or race terms really escalates the issue.

Although you'd never believe it from the coverage, it's not certain that the word "black" was used. The yobbo (on that there can be no disagreement) claims he shouted "Manc ****". He's been interviewed, but not charged, by the police today.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:00 pm

houseboy wrote:Hi Green. Haven’t much time sorry but I feel I need to answer this. The fact is the finer feelings of the sensitive if they overhear a private conversation between two consenting adults is of no consequence to me. It wasn’t aimed at her, it had nothing to do with her and she was simply being offended on behalf of someone who didn’t give a toss. It is this whole attitude of being ‘offended’ that p!sses people (including me). The whole world is obsessed by not causing offence to the point where freedom of speech is in serious danger and that freedom is more important than the finer feelings of the easily offended.

A couple of points here. Firstly, you don’t (& shouldn’t) necessarily have freedom of speech whilst you’re in the workplace. If you worked for me and I overheard you using racist language in the office (whether or not anyone was offended), you’d be picking up your P45 pretty soon afterwards – that comes down to basic standards of decency which any employer is entitled to expect (imo). It’s about creating a working environment where everyone can feel comfortable which would lead to increased productivity / fewer HR issues etc etc.

Secondly, you have no idea why your colleague took offence at the language you used. She may have an Asian husband and children (or nephews nieces etc etc). I don’t think it’s over-sensitive for someone to be offended at you using racist language that (for example) their children are bullied with at school.

Finally, your freedom of speech is not being denied in any way here – even in the hypothetical situation where your boss was to fire you for what you said. Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of whatever you choose to say. In fact, it could be argued that you are impinging on your colleague’s free speech in attempting to deny her the right to express that she was offended by your racist language.

Just to reiterate, though, you and your Asian friend should absolutely be allowed to speak with each other in whatever terms you like, as long as nobody is present to be offended by your language. I have groups of friends in which we will say all sorts of awful things to one another as a form of humour and one-up-man-ship but we are careful to moderate such language in front of one another’s families or in public places.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:34 pm

Greenmile wrote:A couple of points here. Firstly, you don’t (& shouldn’t) necessarily have freedom of speech whilst you’re in the workplace. If you worked for me and I overheard you using racist language in the office (whether or not anyone was offended), you’d be picking up your P45 pretty soon afterwards – that comes down to basic standards of decency which any employer is entitled to expect (imo). It’s about creating a working environment where everyone can feel comfortable which would lead to increased productivity / fewer HR issues etc etc.

Secondly, you have no idea why your colleague took offence at the language you used. She may have an Asian husband and children (or nephews nieces etc etc). I don’t think it’s over-sensitive for someone to be offended at you using racist language that (for example) their children are bullied with at school.

Finally, your freedom of speech is not being denied in any way here – even in the hypothetical situation where your boss was to fire you for what you said. Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of whatever you choose to say. In fact, it could be argued that you are impinging on your colleague’s free speech in attempting to deny her the right to express that she was offended by your racist language.

Just to reiterate, though, you and your Asian friend should absolutely be allowed to speak with each other in whatever terms you like, as long as nobody is present to be offended by your language. I have groups of friends in which we will say all sorts of awful things to one another as a form of humour and one-up-man-ship but we are careful to moderate such language in front of one another’s families or in public places.

I havent time to read all this save to say if I was ‘picking up my p45’ shortly after it is you who would be in serious trouble as instant dismissal for ANYTHING these days is illegal. You would be faced with and lose a tribunal. If you run a company you’d better check up on the law mate.

Siddo · Post by **Siddo** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:47 pm

houseboy wrote:I havent time to read all this save to say if I was ‘picking up my p45’ shortly after it is you who would be in serious trouble as instant dismissal for ANYTHING these days is illegal. You would be faced with and lose a tribunal. If you run a company you’d better check up on the law mate.

Err...gross misconduct? Ok its not you are fired off you go, but it can be a short suspension for investigation and 2 days later, dismissal.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 12:09 am

Greenmile wrote:A couple of points here. Firstly, you don’t (& shouldn’t) necessarily have freedom of speech whilst you’re in the workplace. If you worked for me and I overheard you using racist language in the office (whether or not anyone was offended), you’d be picking up your P45 pretty soon afterwards – that comes down to basic standards of decency which any employer is entitled to expect (imo). It’s about creating a working environment where everyone can feel comfortable which would lead to increased productivity / fewer HR issues etc etc.

Secondly, you have no idea why your colleague took offence at the language you used. She may have an Asian husband and children (or nephews nieces etc etc). I don’t think it’s over-sensitive for someone to be offended at you using racist language that (for example) their children are bullied with at school.

Finally, your freedom of speech is not being denied in any way here – even in the hypothetical situation where your boss was to fire you for what you said. Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of whatever you choose to say. In fact, it could be argued that you are impinging on your colleague’s free speech in attempting to deny her the right to express that she was offended by your racist language.

Just to reiterate, though, you and your Asian friend should absolutely be allowed to speak with each other in whatever terms you like, as long as nobody is present to be offended by your language. I have groups of friends in which we will say all sorts of awful things to one another as a form of humour and one-up-man-ship but we are careful to moderate such language in front of one another’s families or in public places.

The problem is the definition of racist. If two people are talking like Alf Garnett, that's one thing; but what if two people swap Irish jokes? Or what if England lose to Germany and someone has a go at "the dirty German so-and-so"? Either one can be deemed to be racist, and a casual listener or even someone with ear to the keyhole could hear and could claim to be offended.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:41 am

Siddo wrote:Err...gross misconduct? Ok its not you are fired off you go, but it can be a short suspension for investigation and 2 days later, dismissal.

Unfortunately an off-the-cuff-presumed racist comment isn't gross misconduct and would therefore have to go through the normal process of verbal warning, written warning, final warning only then followed by dismissal, each step actually being the final stage unless the behaviour continues. The problem with employment law is it's not like a soap opera where people get sacked at a moments notice. It is extremely complex and is why so many companies use an outsource company such as the one I worked for. On top of all the above you would have to prove that said 'racist' comment was intended as such, otherwise you would then stand accused of sacking someone based on your own bias, which is again highly illegal.
Finally the investigation you speak of, if needed, would have to be carried out with independent witnesses, including someone nominated by the 'offender', it would have to be seen to be open and honest and without any bias. The likelihood of anyone in this country being sacked because of a one-off so-called racist comment are very slim indeed.

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:06 pm

Mrs G is a HR professional.

She says it takes weeks, usually months, to sack someone in a gross misconduct case, due to the amount of information gathering, legal advice, representation, commercial consideration etc.

And the high number of cases brought by people offended by something, or accusing others of harassment, is clogging up the system; as junior/middle managers are unwilling to sort out office quibbles, preferring to bat it on to HR for fear of having a case brought against themselves.

As a result, no one has time to manage performance properly so productivity suffers.

Don't know what the answer is - only hire people who aren't easily offended or those prone to say offensive things I guess.

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:19 pm

NRC wrote:Is it OK for me to characterize the Marwen women, collectively, as “fit as ****”

It could be considered sexist etc to call a woman "a doll"
Yet the Marwen women are Dolls

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:39 pm

houseboy wrote:Unfortunately an off-the-cuff-presumed racist comment isn't gross misconduct and would therefore have to go through the normal process of verbal warning, written warning, final warning only then followed by dismissal, each step actually being the final stage unless the behaviour continues. The problem with employment law is it's not like a soap opera where people get sacked at a moments notice. It is extremely complex and is why so many companies use an outsource company such as the one I worked for. On top of all the above you would have to prove that said 'racist' comment was intended as such, otherwise you would then stand accused of sacking someone based on your own bias, which is again highly illegal.
Finally the investigation you speak of, if needed, would have to be carried out with independent witnesses, including someone nominated by the 'offender', it would have to be seen to be open and honest and without any bias. The likelihood of anyone in this country being sacked because of a one-off so-called racist comment are very slim indeed.

Have you had chance to read and digest the actual points I was making yet, rather than heading down this little employment law cul-de-sac? (I said “pretty soon”, not “immediately” so that’s a moot point, really).