Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

UK Man Demoted For Non-PC Facebook Post


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#16    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,718 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 October 2011 - 05:29 PM

View Postitsnotoutthere, on 24 October 2011 - 06:27 PM, said:

Something i saw on another web blog :-

"I seem to have lost my cool this morning after seeing The Independent on Sunday Pink List 2011. I felt an unbearable need to rant in their comments : How about a list for the 'unsung heroes' the middle class, middle age, English white male.

You know the guy that pays most of the taxes. Doesn't mug pensioners. Doesn't want hand-outs. Doesn't break the law. Doesn't stand on the street corner selling drugs. Brings up a family in responsible manner. Doesn't have massive credit card debt and lives within his means. Doesn't have 'parades' that have to be policed.

You know. The guy that lives with a normal woman and maybe a couple of kids. Goes out to work everyday and is expected to tolerate and hand-out money to all the weird groups who never seem to be able to earn their own money. The guy you can count on when there is a problem.........and usually doesn't complain until now.

We seem to have 'lists' for Feminists, blacks, gays, animals, religious fanatics etc. etc. etc.: the list goes on forever. There seem to be any number of 'special' cases all with their hands out for 'grants' from the local council and government
"

Awesome, awesome post, completely agree!  :tu:

I am that guy, if I can get out there and bust my ass every morning, 10-12 hours per day, sometimes even 6 days per week, why can't they?

Edited by Spid3rCyd3, 25 October 2011 - 05:37 PM.


#17    make me believe

make me believe

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Illinois

Posted 26 October 2011 - 06:50 AM

I'm sure Marxists and multi-cult-ists cheer at what happened to this poor man. Ridiculous events such as this are excellent fodder for the "non-mainstream right" because they raise awareness among ordinary Britons [and other Europeans] about how far society has strayed towards totalitarian Marxism. These unelected bureaucrats who decide what is "acceptable" and what is a "Thoughtcrime" are running wild. Due to their ever expanding list of rules, and their far reaching impact on our everyday lives they will also be the first to go when the pendulum swings.


.

Edited by make me believe, 26 October 2011 - 06:55 AM.


#18    Paracelse

Paracelse

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,074 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France

Posted 26 October 2011 - 07:23 AM

View PostBlackwhite, on 25 October 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

I wonder if mosques are going to be forced to perform gay marriages, too.
The newly weds would prolly receive rocks instead of rice (sharia law states stoning for homosexual relations).

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither Benjamin Franklin
République No.6
It's time for a sixth republic.

#19    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,917 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 26 October 2011 - 09:30 AM

View PostWickian, on 23 October 2011 - 07:37 AM, said:

In all truth, Churches shouldn't be forced to provide marriage services to gays.  It's against the religion.  Let them get a state marriage license and hold their own ceremony.


View PostBlackwhite, on 25 October 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

I wonder if mosques are going to be forced to perform gay marriages, too.

I do wish people would stop acting like religious places would be 'forced' to do anything (which is exactly what they want you to believe). Quite the opposite is true in fact. People are requesting that the government provides an 'opt-in' for the full gay marriage laws. At the momement the laws being discussed would not force church/mosques etc to do anything... but at the same time it would deny them the choice to do so as well. Some churches can (and do) accept gay relationships and would like the option of having marriage services available when the laws come into place.

So is it ok for them to be forced NOT to perform gay marriages if the church would wish to?

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#20    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,917 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 26 October 2011 - 09:34 AM

Well it would seem this article has achieved it's goal: that is to make people angry by focussing on the wrong thing.

The Trust have actually posted a statement saying why.

Quote

At the end of 2010, we updated our Code of Conduct for Employees and provided it to all staff. This version of the Code clearly set out what use employees can make of social networking sites such as Facebook.

Some three months after this new code was issued, Mr Smith, without our authority or knowledge and on a Facebook page that identified him as a manager at Trafford Housing Trust, made comments that were found, by a full disciplinary investigation in which he had Trade Union representation, to be in breach of the company's code of conduct and other policies.  

Mr Smith was disciplined for his breach of company policy. The Trust made no comment about any personal beliefs that he holds.

So there. He recieved the action not due to free speech (which the article impled) but due to violating a clause in the code of conduct. A code that most buisnesses have. So why don't we focus on the real reason he got demoted (violating the code of conduct) rather then the one that everyone assumed (free speech).

After all 'man gets demoted for his opinions' is a much better headline then 'man gets demoted for code of conduct breech'

Edited by shadowhive, 26 October 2011 - 10:17 AM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#21    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,718 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 October 2011 - 02:52 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 26 October 2011 - 09:34 AM, said:

Well it would seem this article has achieved it's goal: that is to make people angry by focussing on the wrong thing.

The Trust have actually posted a statement saying why.



So there. He recieved the action not due to free speech (which the article impled) but due to violating a clause in the code of conduct. A code that most buisnesses have. So why don't we focus on the real reason he got demoted (violating the code of conduct) rather then the one that everyone assumed (free speech).

After all 'man gets demoted for his opinions' is a much better headline then 'man gets demoted for code of conduct breech'

That code of conduct is ridiculously draconian. A company has the right to police what it's employees do during working hours only! In their freetime, if the employee orchestrates plans for global domination, they should be able to do so, because it is during non working, non paid hours! It would've been better to not list where he works on his page, these days it's common sense to know that many are wet blanket pansy types who can't take any shred of criticism, no matter how tough, or mild it is. It probably cost his company more money just wasting time in even dealing with this, than it would have to just let it all go and not give a damn, because untimately no harm was done. Typical mis-management at it's finest, idiots. The manager who raised the red flag on this deserves a salary decrease because he or she is unnecessarily costing the company more money than the guy who made the comment! On the other hand, said company could've seen things positively and declared that they are one of the few companies who actually support individual rights and freedom of speech! That would get them accolades by the masses. Common sense exams should have to be given to anyone who wants a management position. This company should've included, "We only hire mindless automatons" in their code of conduct.

Edited by Spid3rCyd3, 26 October 2011 - 03:20 PM.


#22    Wickian

Wickian

    Doppelganger

  • Member
  • 3,803 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Save it for Queen Doppelpoppellus!

Posted 26 October 2011 - 09:50 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 26 October 2011 - 09:30 AM, said:

I do wish people would stop acting like religious places would be 'forced' to do anything (which is exactly what they want you to believe). Quite the opposite is true in fact. People are requesting that the government provides an 'opt-in' for the full gay marriage laws. At the momement the laws being discussed would not force church/mosques etc to do anything... but at the same time it would deny them the choice to do so as well. Some churches can (and do) accept gay relationships and would like the option of having marriage services available when the laws come into place.

So is it ok for them to be forced NOT to perform gay marriages if the church would wish to?
If the churches are never forced, but then decide to, allow gay marriage that's fine.  It's unlikely, but fine.  It was my understanding that the government already have an equivalent to religious marriages.


#23    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,917 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 26 October 2011 - 10:25 PM

View PostWickian, on 26 October 2011 - 09:50 PM, said:

If the churches are never forced, but then decide to, allow gay marriage that's fine.  It's unlikely, but fine.  It was my understanding that the government already have an equivalent to religious marriages.

As I said,several churches actually WANT to (and a group representing them met with the government awhile back to say as such).

What we have now is civil partnerships, not marriage. There IS a difference between the two, even though some act like there's not.

Another thing of note is that religion doesn't dictate or control hetrosexual marriage. People of any faith (or none) are free to marry and religions don't seem terribly keen on voicing opposition to that (even though their faith often says they should) so I always find it curious that they want such a great level of control and say when it comes to homosexual marriage. The opinion of religion doesn't matter when it comes to hetrosexual marriage, why should it be the case for homosexual marriage?

Edited by shadowhive, 26 October 2011 - 10:26 PM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#24    Englishgent

Englishgent

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,909 posts
  • Joined:24 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bangkok Thailand

  • all dinosaurs are thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, then thin again at the far end -- Monty Python

Posted 27 October 2011 - 08:57 AM

Signing something like the Official Secrets Act. or a Company code of practice that denies you the right to sell company secrets or some information that would be of value to somebody else is totally understandable and in my opinion acceptable. Telling an empoyee that they cant use facebook, whether privately or publicly to voice their own opinions is totally out of order.


#25    Sthenno

Sthenno

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,167 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2006

Posted 30 October 2011 - 09:28 AM

I'm not really sure what everyone's getting so worked up about. A little research shows that a huge chunk of his company's budget is government funded, and the awards it has been granted imply that at least part of that is coming from pots designated to combat homophobia. It would be pretty damaging, I imagine, for the company to be seen as employing someone who exhibited a religious-based opinion on sexuality, particularly if complaints had been made. It's got nothing to do with free speech, and it's not the result of a draconian government policing our every word and thought. It's PR, plain and simple.


#26    itsnotoutthere

itsnotoutthere

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,066 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Royston Vasey

  • “Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while”

Posted 30 October 2011 - 09:35 AM

View Postmake me believe, on 26 October 2011 - 06:50 AM, said:

I'm sure Marxists and multi-cult-ists cheer at what happened to this poor man. Ridiculous events such as this are excellent fodder for the "non-mainstream right" because they raise awareness among ordinary Britons [and other Europeans] about how far society has strayed towards totalitarian Marxism. These unelected bureaucrats who decide what is "acceptable" and what is a "Thoughtcrime" are running wild. Due to their ever expanding list of rules, and their far reaching impact on our everyday lives they will also be the first to go when the pendulum swings.


.


See reply above

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

#27    Sthenno

Sthenno

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,167 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2006

Posted 30 October 2011 - 09:47 AM

View Postitsnotoutthere, on 30 October 2011 - 09:35 AM, said:

See reply above
Did you even read what I wrote? I didn't say I liked what has happened to him, just that it's glaringly obvious why it did.

Edited by Sthenno, 30 October 2011 - 09:49 AM.


#28    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,076 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 30 October 2011 - 09:52 AM

View PostSpid3rCyd3, on 26 October 2011 - 02:52 PM, said:

That code of conduct is ridiculously draconian. A company has the right to police what it's employees do during working hours only! In their freetime, if the employee orchestrates plans for global domination, they should be able to do so, because it is during non working, non paid hours! It would've been better to not list where he works on his page, these days it's common sense to know that many are wet blanket pansy types who can't take any shred of criticism, no matter how tough, or mild it is. It probably cost his company more money just wasting time in even dealing with this, than it would have to just let it all go and not give a damn, because untimately no harm was done. Typical mis-management at it's finest, idiots. The manager who raised the red flag on this deserves a salary decrease because he or she is unnecessarily costing the company more money than the guy who made the comment! On the other hand, said company could've seen things positively and declared that they are one of the few companies who actually support individual rights and freedom of speech! That would get them accolades by the masses. Common sense exams should have to be given to anyone who wants a management position. This company should've included, "We only hire mindless automatons" in their code of conduct.
If he claimed to represent the company, the company has every right to police his behaviour. If he had made the statement from himself without the company been mentioned no issue would have been raised.
If I as an employee of HMS Government said that Gays were subhuman then I would get the sack. If I said  the same thing as Br Cornelius, I would just get laughed at. Spot the difference.

Classic manipulation of a quite straight forward story of employee misconduct.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 30 October 2011 - 09:57 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#29    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,718 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2011 - 02:23 PM

I still think there could've been a positive spin put on it in any circumstance for a beneficial outcome. I don't agree with reducing this man's salary, especially in this economic climate. They should have at least counseled him first, and nicely asked him to please remove the post, or take the company name off his page. It looks like someone either has a personal vendetta against him, or management was trying to make an example out of him, which is also something I completely disagree with.

Edited by Spid3rCyd3, 31 October 2011 - 02:26 PM.


#30    ali smack

ali smack

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wertham

  • If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:34 PM

I'm glad he won his court case and even Peter Tatchell was sticking up for this poor man.
He wasn't homophobic in the slightest. He just wrote on his facebook on his status
he didn't think gay marriage should be allowed in a church but he thought it was ok
in a registry office.
the guy is entitled to his opinions.
he's hardly Nick Griffin is he





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users