Essex Lad wrote:
> Are they not allowed to have an opinion? What they said and did
> was off-air and that's the key. I don't believe there is one
> person on this forum who has never said something that they
> would not want broadcast.
>
> And as for sexist remarks...Loose Women anyone?
They should have been more professional though. They shouldn't have said it at work surrounded by hundreds of cameras and sound equipment. Especially when Sky Sports is all about catching EVERYTHING.
Pundit-Gate: Meet Charlotte Jackson ...
Re: Pundit-Gate: Meet Charlotte Jackson ...
>>
Silly comparison, Sam. Comparing violent sexual assault to a throwaway comment. I credited you with more intelligence than that.
>>
And as I said in that thread also, I'm aware of that.
>>
True, they don't. But again, you're just *assuming* that she *was* offended.
I don't know whether she was or she wasn't. Maybe the smile was indeed to cover up embarrassment. Or maybe she was actually amused by the comment. Or maybe she just thought "oh here we go, the daft cunt's off again". We have no way of knowing.
But in typical knee-jerk style, plenty of people have made the decison for her and decreed that she must have been "offended". It would be interesting to hear what she had to say for herself on the subject.
Essex Lad's comment was spot on: Who here can **honestly** say that they've **never** said anything "politically incorrect" that they wouldn't want broadcast or made public?
Which is why is why I have to laugh at all this self-righteous, hypocritical moralising (to answer your question in the other thread).
- Eric
Silly comparison, Sam. Comparing violent sexual assault to a throwaway comment. I credited you with more intelligence than that.
>>
And as I said in that thread also, I'm aware of that.
>>
True, they don't. But again, you're just *assuming* that she *was* offended.
I don't know whether she was or she wasn't. Maybe the smile was indeed to cover up embarrassment. Or maybe she was actually amused by the comment. Or maybe she just thought "oh here we go, the daft cunt's off again". We have no way of knowing.
But in typical knee-jerk style, plenty of people have made the decison for her and decreed that she must have been "offended". It would be interesting to hear what she had to say for herself on the subject.
Essex Lad's comment was spot on: Who here can **honestly** say that they've **never** said anything "politically incorrect" that they wouldn't want broadcast or made public?
Which is why is why I have to laugh at all this self-righteous, hypocritical moralising (to answer your question in the other thread).
- Eric
Re: Pundit-Gate: Meet Charlotte Jackson ...
At the end of the day i hope Gray calls his lawyers in and wins his unfair didmissal case!
Gray was brought in to meet Sky Sports Bosses and was given a rap over the knuckles for his comments and told to improve his behaviour in the future and to change his ways. He was then brought back before his bosses the next day after another video was leaked over comments he made the previous December and fired for them. Which gave him no way of showing his bosses that he had learned from his mistakes and was improving his behaviour. Case Closed he will take Sky to the cleaners.
Gray was brought in to meet Sky Sports Bosses and was given a rap over the knuckles for his comments and told to improve his behaviour in the future and to change his ways. He was then brought back before his bosses the next day after another video was leaked over comments he made the previous December and fired for them. Which gave him no way of showing his bosses that he had learned from his mistakes and was improving his behaviour. Case Closed he will take Sky to the cleaners.
-
Sam Slater
- Posts: 11624
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Pundit-Gate: Meet Charlotte Jackson ...
Except it wasn't a comparison of different incidents. I was showing that the mentality is the same:
You excuse the behaviour of someone because their victim dresses in a certain way.
A short skirt is no excuse for rape.
A modelling career is no excuse for sexist attitudes or sexual harassment.
Come on, Eric, why did you post that pic of Charlotte in a bikini? What relevance is it? I can only presume you think girls who show off their bodies in some capacity or other cannot be offended, or embarrassed, or complain about sexual harassment.
Let's go back on how you opened your post below the bikini pic:
Eric said: "... the shy and retiring, shrinking-violet wallflower now at the centre of the Sky Sports "Pundit-Gate" affair."
Why the sarcasm about a girl directly under a bikini shot of hers? I repeat, it reminded me of a regular Daily Mail article.
As for the rest, well, like we've both said, we do not yet know what Gray's relationship was with Charlotte. We don't know how many warnings Gray has had over the years, but know of one other for definite. And we do not know if Charlotte was made to feel uncomfortable by Gray's suggestions.
Even if they had a flirtatious relationship as you seem to think they had, there is an argument that he could have still offended her in saying those remarks in from of the whole film crew. And whatever we all think about the whole affair, we can both accept that if Gray's comments were against Sky policies they have a right to sack him.
Oh, and there's still no excuse to be of the mindset that women cannot officiate in football games, if they're passed the same tests and completed the same courses as all other officials in the game.
You excuse the behaviour of someone because their victim dresses in a certain way.
A short skirt is no excuse for rape.
A modelling career is no excuse for sexist attitudes or sexual harassment.
Come on, Eric, why did you post that pic of Charlotte in a bikini? What relevance is it? I can only presume you think girls who show off their bodies in some capacity or other cannot be offended, or embarrassed, or complain about sexual harassment.
Let's go back on how you opened your post below the bikini pic:
Eric said: "... the shy and retiring, shrinking-violet wallflower now at the centre of the Sky Sports "Pundit-Gate" affair."
Why the sarcasm about a girl directly under a bikini shot of hers? I repeat, it reminded me of a regular Daily Mail article.
As for the rest, well, like we've both said, we do not yet know what Gray's relationship was with Charlotte. We don't know how many warnings Gray has had over the years, but know of one other for definite. And we do not know if Charlotte was made to feel uncomfortable by Gray's suggestions.
Even if they had a flirtatious relationship as you seem to think they had, there is an argument that he could have still offended her in saying those remarks in from of the whole film crew. And whatever we all think about the whole affair, we can both accept that if Gray's comments were against Sky policies they have a right to sack him.
Oh, and there's still no excuse to be of the mindset that women cannot officiate in football games, if they're passed the same tests and completed the same courses as all other officials in the game.
[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
Re: Pundit-Gate: Meet Charlotte Jackson ...
Is it really "Sam Slater"? Or has Germaine fucking Greer been let loose on here?
For fuck's sake, stop ringing those hands. They'll fall off old son.
You even admitted in the other thread that you yourself of have flirted with / engaged in suggestive banter with women. So what makes you so morally superior to or different from Andy Gray, who's just been fired for doing exactly that? What makes **ANY** of us different? Apart from the fact that you're not a TV pundit and weren't caught on camera doing it (I refer back the point about no-one here being able to honestly claim never to have made any "politically incorrect" comments that they wouldn't want broadcast or published).
Really Sam, I've not read such a load of morally-conceited, sanctimonious cobblers in many a long year. I apologise if that appears a tad impolite, but really I can't find any better words to describe it.
Another thought to ponder: I recently saw an episode of "Have I got news for you" in which Jo Brand was banging on about the best way to a man's heart not being through his stomach but with a bread knife.
When is she going to be fired for "sexist" comments I wonder? Because no doubt if a bloke had said that about women he'd have been accused of "advocating violence against women" and/or "insulting every women who's been a viction of domestic violence" etc. etc.
So why isn't she in the dole queue clutching her P45 alongside Andy Gray?
Why don't you address these other issues, instead of just using that tired old "Daily Mail" riposte (you clearly have more experience of the DM than me, because I haven't picked up a copy in years).
But at least you're now admitting that indeed we don't know what the relationship was between the pair, so I suppose it's progress of sorts.
- Eric
For fuck's sake, stop ringing those hands. They'll fall off old son.
You even admitted in the other thread that you yourself of have flirted with / engaged in suggestive banter with women. So what makes you so morally superior to or different from Andy Gray, who's just been fired for doing exactly that? What makes **ANY** of us different? Apart from the fact that you're not a TV pundit and weren't caught on camera doing it (I refer back the point about no-one here being able to honestly claim never to have made any "politically incorrect" comments that they wouldn't want broadcast or published).
Really Sam, I've not read such a load of morally-conceited, sanctimonious cobblers in many a long year. I apologise if that appears a tad impolite, but really I can't find any better words to describe it.
Another thought to ponder: I recently saw an episode of "Have I got news for you" in which Jo Brand was banging on about the best way to a man's heart not being through his stomach but with a bread knife.
When is she going to be fired for "sexist" comments I wonder? Because no doubt if a bloke had said that about women he'd have been accused of "advocating violence against women" and/or "insulting every women who's been a viction of domestic violence" etc. etc.
So why isn't she in the dole queue clutching her P45 alongside Andy Gray?
Why don't you address these other issues, instead of just using that tired old "Daily Mail" riposte (you clearly have more experience of the DM than me, because I haven't picked up a copy in years).
But at least you're now admitting that indeed we don't know what the relationship was between the pair, so I suppose it's progress of sorts.
- Eric
Re: Pundit-Gate: Meet Charlotte Jackson ...
And regarding women officiating at football matches, it wouldn't bother me one jot if it were a man, a woman or a fucking gorilla officiating, provided they were competent.
But were back again to the double standards aren't we: The "Loose Women" actually getting paid handsomely to lambast and rip the piss out of men for a living, while Andy Gray gets pilloried for opining that women make crap "linespersons".
Not that I really give a fuck - I actually think the 'Loose Women' can be quite amusing. Like I said before, it's the crass double standards that's wrong.
Either both are sexist and unacceptable, or neither are. And don't give me any guff about "but 'Loose Women' is just light entertainment" either, because we both know that wouldn't wash if it were the other way round.
- Eric
But were back again to the double standards aren't we: The "Loose Women" actually getting paid handsomely to lambast and rip the piss out of men for a living, while Andy Gray gets pilloried for opining that women make crap "linespersons".
Not that I really give a fuck - I actually think the 'Loose Women' can be quite amusing. Like I said before, it's the crass double standards that's wrong.
Either both are sexist and unacceptable, or neither are. And don't give me any guff about "but 'Loose Women' is just light entertainment" either, because we both know that wouldn't wash if it were the other way round.
- Eric
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Very Confused..
Eric, I think you are very confused in your thinking on this.
1. Banter. You get banter between men and women all the time at work. Correct! Its give and take with both sides taking the piss out of each other.
Personally I don't see a problem with that. Banter is one of the things that makes life enjoyable.
2. Banter with a real edge. You get banter which is about someone who is not returning the banter. Either because they are not aware of it in the case of the assistant referee or because they might be a junior worker and are scared to return that banter. There was a very hard edge about this banter in the case of Keys and Gray. They were taking the piss out of the female assistant before the game had even started. If I were to say in mike, oh we are fucked now, we have a black guy running the line. How is a black guy going to know what the offside rule is etc etc. Most people rightly would not consider this as acceptable. What Gray was sacked for was sexual banter against a junior member of the team who seemed unable for whatever reason to respond.
3. These guys had a lot of previous. The stories coming out of Sky suggest that they regarded themselves as ruling the roost. Apparently they often bullied the junior staff in the studio. That's what I mean when I say that banter which is only one sided and which is all about making the other person who is weaker than you look stupid and ill at ease is not acceptable.
4. It is interesting to see that not one person who has worked with them as far as I can see has come out in favour of these two. I can understand that people currently in Sky might be concerned about supporting them. However I havent come across anyone who has left Sky but worked with them previously, defending them. In fact the opposite, there has been a lot of condemnatory stories about their bullying.
So, in short, it looks like these guys had it coming and because they had been behaving like arseholes, some person(s) had decided that it was comeuppance time. Hence the youtube clips.
This is my last comment on this thread.
Cheers
D
1. Banter. You get banter between men and women all the time at work. Correct! Its give and take with both sides taking the piss out of each other.
Personally I don't see a problem with that. Banter is one of the things that makes life enjoyable.
2. Banter with a real edge. You get banter which is about someone who is not returning the banter. Either because they are not aware of it in the case of the assistant referee or because they might be a junior worker and are scared to return that banter. There was a very hard edge about this banter in the case of Keys and Gray. They were taking the piss out of the female assistant before the game had even started. If I were to say in mike, oh we are fucked now, we have a black guy running the line. How is a black guy going to know what the offside rule is etc etc. Most people rightly would not consider this as acceptable. What Gray was sacked for was sexual banter against a junior member of the team who seemed unable for whatever reason to respond.
3. These guys had a lot of previous. The stories coming out of Sky suggest that they regarded themselves as ruling the roost. Apparently they often bullied the junior staff in the studio. That's what I mean when I say that banter which is only one sided and which is all about making the other person who is weaker than you look stupid and ill at ease is not acceptable.
4. It is interesting to see that not one person who has worked with them as far as I can see has come out in favour of these two. I can understand that people currently in Sky might be concerned about supporting them. However I havent come across anyone who has left Sky but worked with them previously, defending them. In fact the opposite, there has been a lot of condemnatory stories about their bullying.
So, in short, it looks like these guys had it coming and because they had been behaving like arseholes, some person(s) had decided that it was comeuppance time. Hence the youtube clips.
This is my last comment on this thread.
Cheers
D
Re: Pundit-Gate: Meet Charlotte Jackson ...
I think you're the one who's confused David because you're completely missing my point.
Using your own definition, would you not agree that the Jo Brand / Loose Women examples that I cited above also constitute "banter with a real edge", i.e. collectively slagging off a particular group (in this case men) in a disparaging manner, without them having a proper opportunity to respond?
Or are you saying that such banter is perfectly acceptable if blokes are on the receiving end, but not ethnic minorities or women? Which would surprise me somewhat because I thought you Socialist types were all about "equality", and surely "equality" must cut both ways should it not? Otherwise it's not equality!
There are other examples of anti-male "banter with a real edge" in the printed media also, in these "Women's columns". I've read some really nasty bile in those. Yet once again, it all seems to be perfectly acceptable for women to trash men.
So I reiterate: Either so-called "sexist" comments from both men AND women are wrong, or neither are. You can't have double standards.
I'm not aware of any Sky Sports staff openly coming out in support of Messrs Gray and Keys either. But neither am I aware of any specific "stories coming out of Sky". All I've seen is "by all accounts" comments on forums such as this. By whose accounts? Where can I read such stories (preferably properly attributed ones, not just unsubstantiated claims by "a source at Sky") because I would be genuinely interested.
- Eric
Using your own definition, would you not agree that the Jo Brand / Loose Women examples that I cited above also constitute "banter with a real edge", i.e. collectively slagging off a particular group (in this case men) in a disparaging manner, without them having a proper opportunity to respond?
Or are you saying that such banter is perfectly acceptable if blokes are on the receiving end, but not ethnic minorities or women? Which would surprise me somewhat because I thought you Socialist types were all about "equality", and surely "equality" must cut both ways should it not? Otherwise it's not equality!
There are other examples of anti-male "banter with a real edge" in the printed media also, in these "Women's columns". I've read some really nasty bile in those. Yet once again, it all seems to be perfectly acceptable for women to trash men.
So I reiterate: Either so-called "sexist" comments from both men AND women are wrong, or neither are. You can't have double standards.
I'm not aware of any Sky Sports staff openly coming out in support of Messrs Gray and Keys either. But neither am I aware of any specific "stories coming out of Sky". All I've seen is "by all accounts" comments on forums such as this. By whose accounts? Where can I read such stories (preferably properly attributed ones, not just unsubstantiated claims by "a source at Sky") because I would be genuinely interested.
- Eric
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Pundit-Gate: Meet Charlotte Jackson ...
From the Talk Sport interview with Keys
""Is it a form of sexual bullying, two older men having a laugh with someone not as established at Sky as you are, two powerful people in an organisation?"
Keys replied: "I accept that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... eys-sixist
The women quoted here in the above links do not give their names. Obviously you could assume it is all made up. Ask yourself. Why has no junior staff come out to defend Keys and Gray at all? All the feedback has been negative. Why did the staff obviously stitch Gray and Keys up by making the clips available on Youtube.
Unlike Loose Women, the analogy you are desperately holding on to, Gray and Keys were sexual bullies who bullied and intimidated junior staff who worked with them.
They've gone. Good riddance. Get over it.
D
""Is it a form of sexual bullying, two older men having a laugh with someone not as established at Sky as you are, two powerful people in an organisation?"
Keys replied: "I accept that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... eys-sixist
The women quoted here in the above links do not give their names. Obviously you could assume it is all made up. Ask yourself. Why has no junior staff come out to defend Keys and Gray at all? All the feedback has been negative. Why did the staff obviously stitch Gray and Keys up by making the clips available on Youtube.
Unlike Loose Women, the analogy you are desperately holding on to, Gray and Keys were sexual bullies who bullied and intimidated junior staff who worked with them.
They've gone. Good riddance. Get over it.
D
Re: Pundit-Gate: Meet Charlotte Jackson ...
I've nothing to get over David.
Like I've said before, unless I happen to occasionally catch it in the pub I never watch Sky Sports (I cancelled my own subscription way back circa 1998) and I have no particular feelings towards Andy Gray or Richard Keys one way or the other. I neither love 'em or hate 'em.
Nor am I "desperately clinging onto" anything, because we seem to be talking at cross purposes here.
You're focussing on the alleged "bullying" aspect of the affair (thanks for the link by the way - I knew you wouldn't be able to stay away long!), whereas I'm more concerned about the more general (and massively hypocritical) double standards prevalent in the media and politics which hold that sexism by men is regarded as an evil that must be stamped out at all costs, whereas sexism by women seems to be perfectly acceptable, and sometimes even encouraged.
Of course bullying is wrong (be it sexual bullying or any other form of bullying). I even said that higher up in the thread (do pay attention!).
But Gray wasn't fired for "bullying" was he? He was firstly reprimanded for saying (off air) that women make crap linesmen, before being red-carded for similar pitch-side comments and the comment to young Miss Jackson in the studio.
All this "bullying" stuff has only come out since. And I have to wonder why it wasn't dealt with before if there really was such a "culture" at Sky, as is being claimed by these three (conveniently anonymous) women.
Some people think it's clever to bang on about the Daily Mail all the time (I just find it tiresome and cliched), but bear in mind that the Mail isn't the only paper with an agenda. The Guardian has one also, and it's a hand-wringingly liberal-left one, with a pervasive stench of snotty, morally-conceited political correctness.
- Eric
Like I've said before, unless I happen to occasionally catch it in the pub I never watch Sky Sports (I cancelled my own subscription way back circa 1998) and I have no particular feelings towards Andy Gray or Richard Keys one way or the other. I neither love 'em or hate 'em.
Nor am I "desperately clinging onto" anything, because we seem to be talking at cross purposes here.
You're focussing on the alleged "bullying" aspect of the affair (thanks for the link by the way - I knew you wouldn't be able to stay away long!), whereas I'm more concerned about the more general (and massively hypocritical) double standards prevalent in the media and politics which hold that sexism by men is regarded as an evil that must be stamped out at all costs, whereas sexism by women seems to be perfectly acceptable, and sometimes even encouraged.
Of course bullying is wrong (be it sexual bullying or any other form of bullying). I even said that higher up in the thread (do pay attention!).
But Gray wasn't fired for "bullying" was he? He was firstly reprimanded for saying (off air) that women make crap linesmen, before being red-carded for similar pitch-side comments and the comment to young Miss Jackson in the studio.
All this "bullying" stuff has only come out since. And I have to wonder why it wasn't dealt with before if there really was such a "culture" at Sky, as is being claimed by these three (conveniently anonymous) women.
Some people think it's clever to bang on about the Daily Mail all the time (I just find it tiresome and cliched), but bear in mind that the Mail isn't the only paper with an agenda. The Guardian has one also, and it's a hand-wringingly liberal-left one, with a pervasive stench of snotty, morally-conceited political correctness.
- Eric