Andy Gray and Richard Keys disciplined

[Stitch_KTF]

Are you for real!? A beautiful woman may choose to use her good looks to her advantage. That DOES NOT MEAN SHE IS ASKING FOR IT!!

 

:censored:!

 

That's hideous mate. You can't honestly think like that?

 

Asking for what? To be flirted with? As far as I know she's unfortunately not being spreadeagled across the SSN desk on a daily basis.

 

The point is that, regardless of the trait in question, you take the rough with the smooth. That's life. Her ugly mate probably doesn't enjoy the life of being a TV presenter but, thank heavens, she doesn't have to persevere with blokes making crass, but essentially harmless, flirtatious remarks.

 

Where's her hardship? She makes her a living largely out of being attractive and a bloke is now penalised for showing an attraction?

 

Besides, it's always been Andy Gray's instinct to try and get into the box.

[dave_ragg1984]

Miss Jackson looked far from impressed, surely that counts as Sexual Harassment and is rather sinister in its overtones. What is even more disapointing is that Keys is laughing along. Surely his position is untenable as well?

 

 

She doesn't look impressed. She doesn't look disgusted either. She actually looks like she just ignored it completely and got on with her job.

 

It's not sexual harassment at all. It's just a old, balding bloke doing a very bad attempt at flirting with an attractive young lady.

 

If Sky go back through all their unbroadcast footage they have on record, and reprimand all their staff they have caught saying inappropriate/slightly flirty things to those attractive presenters that they have, then I reckon they would have hardly any staff left.

[Ackey]

Don't get me wrong Stitch, if I see an attractive woman in a bar or in a 'social' context then I'm likely going to notice and act on that.

 

I just refuse to accept the irony. Just because she's attractive doesn't mean people can hit on her without due recourse. She's entitled to work in an environment where she feels comfortable. If she feels comfortable in 'attractive' or 'sexy' clothing that doesn't by default mean she wants to be hit on.

 

Equally assuming that someone who is attractive must have got the job by providing sexual favours is horse :censored:. You have no evidence for that.

 

I would like to declare a bias here. I know two people who've been raped. Both had an equivalent of 'survivors guilt' from which they thought that they 'asked for it' by being attractive and dressed 'sexily' (for want of a better word).

 

Now not for one second am I equating what Gray did to rape, I accept like Dave says that it was most likely inept flirting, but that doesn't mean that she asked for it, that there was irony or that she's given sexual favours to get where she is.

 

Sorry for the rant.

 

[PlayItLivo]

Well. now that Andy Gray has been sacked for his sexist remarks there has finally been a precedent set to get Loose Women taken off air.

[Lookers_Carl]

Well. now that Andy Gray has been sacked for his sexist remarks there has finally been a precedent set to get Loose Women taken off air.

 

Either that or they bring out a new show called 'Loose Men'

 

Hosted by Andy Gray

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

Totally unimpressed with everyone in this entire debacle

 

Andy Gray (along with Keys) obviously has some irrational opinions of women. He's a bit of a tw@t. Go figure.

 

Sky, in keeping with the modern tradition of politically correct insanity, have decided to sack him. (Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face). If we sack every TV Personality who has an irrational discrimatory attitude towards a group of people, how many would we have left? Must our presenters all be bland automatons who stick rigidly to the current zeitgeist on what is considered inoffensive?

 

Here's how you deal with the guy and here's how you nake an example of him. You set up an interview and grill him. Get him to explain why he believes that all women don't understand the offside rule. Watch him dig him further into a hole or admit he was wrong and why. Then, unless he keeps being a tw@t, let him get on with his job.

 

But i personally really don't give a sh*t about what a Sports commentator's views are on women any more than I care what the bin men have on their toast in the morning.

 

p.s. Asking a female coworker if she's like to help tuck your shirt in is not worthy of consideration in this rights and wrongs of this case unless a) he was always saying stuff like that to her AND B ) she objected to him saying those kind of things. Otherwise it's no more than an attempt at flirting or goofing around.

Edited January 25, 2011 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Totally unimpressed with everyone in this entire debacle

 

Andy Gray (along with Keys) obviously has some irrational opinions of women. He's a bit of a tw@t. Go figure.

 

Sky, in keeping with the modern tradition of politically correct insanity, have decided to sack him. (Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face). If we sack every TV Personality who has an irrational discrimatory attitude towards a group of people, how many would we have left? Must our presenters all be bland automatons who stick rigidly to the current zeitgeist on what is considered inoffensive?

 

Here's how you deal with the guy and here's how you nake an example of him. You set up an interview and grill him. Get him to explain why he believes that all women don't understand the offside rule. Watch him dig him further into a hole or admit he was wrong and why. Then, unless he keeps being a tw@t, let him get on with his job.

 

But i personally really don't give a sh*t about what a Sports commentator's views are on women any more than I care what the bin men have on their toast in the morning.

 

p.s. Asking a female coworker if she's like to help tuck your shirt in is not worthy of consideration in this rights and wrongs of this case unless a) he was always saying stuff like that to her AND she objected to him saying those kind of things. Otherwise it's no more than an attempt flirting or goofing around.

 

I hate it when you

(a) can't get your point across without

( creating a smiley and

© the universal symbol for copyright.

[PlayItLivo]

The gesture he made to Charlotte Jackson is worth sacking him alone.

[Stitch_KTF]

Don't get me wrong Stitch, if I see an attractive woman in a bar or in a 'social' context then I'm likely going to notice and act on that.

 

I just refuse to accept the irony. Just because she's attractive doesn't mean people can hit on her without due recourse. She's entitled to work in an environment where she feels comfortable. If she feels comfortable in 'attractive' or 'sexy' clothing that doesn't by default mean she wants to be hit on.

 

Equally assuming that someone who is attractive must have got the job by providing sexual favours is horse :censored:. You have no evidence for that.

 

I would like to declare a bias here. I know two people who've been raped. Both had an equivalent of 'survivors guilt' from which they thought that they 'asked for it' by being attractive and dressed 'sexily' (for want of a better word).

 

Now not for one second am I equating what Gray did to rape, I accept like Dave says that it was most likely inept flirting, but that doesn't mean that she asked for it, that there was irony or that she's given sexual favours to get where she is.

 

Sorry for the rant.

 

The irony I see is in the same employer likely employing the girl for her looks whilst another employee is hounded out and apparently publicly shamed for showing his fancy toward her. It appears he got the cold shoulder, dropped it and put his tail between his legs. This is recourse enough. Had he pursued the line, or insulted her or something then I'd side with her all day long.

 

Of course the insinuation that she only got the job via whorish means was an unsubstantiated snide remark.

 

Perhaps I'm just jealous that I can't be a well paid, sexy TV presenter, even if it would mean having to deal with 50 year old female colleagues jokingly asking me to stuff things in their pants.

[rudemedic]

This could get very interesting. Gray may have a case for unfair dismissal, especially in light of some of the stuff about him and the phone-hacking thing. Essentially Sky have to prove that this sort of banter/sexism (or other ism) and there is a fine line between the two, doesn't go on in their workplaces and when it does the people in the wrong are educated about it. Because they have essentially fired him for two offences- they have to be to demonstrate that he was made aware not to do it again in the intervening period. If they can't and Keys keeps his job (although Keys has apologised and Gray might not have) Gray could be getting a custy pay-off.

 

Presumably Gray doesn't need the money and he might be able to get another job (I'd be wary of hiring him- its far harder to sack someone than to not hire them) but he might not struggle to get the same gig for the likes of Al-Jazerra.

 

There is something fishy about the fact that the information from December comes out in Jan to give justification for firing him

"After issuing a warning yesterday [Monday] we have no hesitation in taking this action after becoming aware of new information today."

Very convenient.

 

 

 

 

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

I hate it when you

(a) can't get your point across without

( creating a smiley and

© the universal symbol for copyright.

Talking about overreactions ^^

 

a ) it wasn't a smiley it was "b" and ")". When you put them together you get a . This should have been obvious to you within the context of the post. But regardless, I have now corrected it.

 

b ) I never used the copyright symbol. Look again

Edited January 25, 2011 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Talk about overreactions ^^

 

a ) it wasn't a smiley it was "b" and ")". When you put them together you get a . This should have been obvious to you within the context of the post. But regardless, I have now corrected it.

 

b ) I never used the copyright symbol. Look again

 

Sorry - I didn't mean you. I meant "people", including "I", as in

 

I hate the way in which I can't

a) make my point without inadvertently

creating a smiley and

© the universal symbol for copyright.

 

It was meant to be funny. I thought it was funny.

Edited January 25, 2011 by 24hoursfromtulsehill

[dave_ragg1984]

This could get very interesting. Gray may have a case for unfair dismissal, especially in light of some of the stuff about him and the phone-hacking thing. Essentially Sky have to prove that this sort of banter/sexism (or other ism) and there is a fine line between the two, doesn't go on in their workplaces and when it does the people in the wrong are educated about it. Because they have essentially fired him for two offences- they have to be to demonstrate that he was made aware not to do it again in the intervening period. If they can't and Keys keeps his job (although Keys has apologised and Gray might not have) Gray could be getting a custy pay-off.

 

Presumably Gray doesn't need the money and he might be able to get another job (I'd be wary of hiring him- its far harder to sack someone than to not hire them) but he might not struggle to get the same gig for the likes of Al-Jazerra.

 

There is something fishy about the fact that the information from December comes out in Jan to give justification for firing him

"After issuing a warning yesterday [Monday] we have no hesitation in taking this action after becoming aware of new information today."

Very convenient.

 

Just read this:

 

http://www.beehivecity.com/television/andy...side-job989874/

 

This suggests that they were just making sure they could definitely sack him before doing so.

 

He will definitely get another job, doing exactly what he has been doing at Sky. Probably in the USA where he covered the World Cup, or in Asia. Anyone who has watched Premier League games via dodgy online methods will have recognized pundits like Steve McMahon and Warren Barton on some random foreign channels.

[help_shiny]

I think it's right that Andy Gray has been sacked for his ignorant, sexist comments. Sky should set an example and give his job to a woman. Preferably one with big tits.

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

I think it's right that Andy Gray has been sacked for his ignorant, sexist comments. Sky should set an example and give his job to a woman. Preferably one with big tits.

They can save on wages if they make it the woman who makes the tea for Richard Keys.

[beag_teeets]

I hope Sky, like any sensible employer, keep their sexual harassment forms in a sensible place.

 

 

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

I hope Sky, like any sensible employer, keep their sexual harassment forms in a sensible place.

He's merely amused at her bad posture, beags

Edited January 25, 2011 by PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

[beag_teeets]

He's merely amused at her bad posture, beags

 

 

I'd help her keep her back straight!

[PhilStarbucksSilkySkills]

Have to share this:

 

Where's the bloke?

[leeslover]

I've no question Gray has been set up. Thing is though it's good sense not to leave yourself open to that sort of thing just in case your employer wants to sack you for a completely unrelated reason. I will never reply to an email from a friend that could be considered a bit borderline for example just in case it was brought up out of context years later.

 

Think there are two fairly unrelated things here though. Commenting on an employee in another firm and another (albeit related) industry is a far cry from saying and doing things directly and in the presence of a colleague. LEvels of smut like that were accepted 10 years ago, for good or ill, but they carry a risk today.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Set up how? Was - for instance - Fred West "set up"?

[leeslover]

Set up how? Was - for instance - Fred West "set up"?

Perhaps not. My point was that the great majority of people do thinhs of one type or another that don't reflect that well on them (not necessarily anything to do with any isms) that only get brought up when the company wants to off you. I believe the first release to be a stitched together collection of quotes, which has been the basis to bring the other one out as the killer blow.

 

They are liable for what they said and did, and I think they are both pricks, so I'm not shedding tears. They were foolish to think they could attract such powerful enemies without having covered their backs for a long long time.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

I buy the set-up theory now having joined the following dots.

 

Name a recently sacked Sky Sports presenter (Proprietor: Rupert Murdoch) who recently announced his intention to bring legal action against the News of the World (Proprietor: Rupert Murdoch) in relation to phone hacking?

 

Which newspaper and satellite broadcasting mogul recently landed in London to sort out the twin crises in his organisation?

Edited January 26, 2011 by 24hoursfromtulsehill

[leeslover]

I buy the set-up theory now having joined the following dots.

 

Name a recently sacked Sky Sports presenter (Proprietor: Rupert Murdoch) who recently announced his intention to bring legal action against the News of the World (Proprietor: Rupert Murdoch) in relation to phone hacking?

 

Which newspaper and satellite broadcasting mogul recently landed in London to sort out the twin crises in his organisation?

About time.

 

It needn't be a big thing about Murdoch's power though. Sue your own company in most industries and you would expect you own behaviour to be pretty closely looked at.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

About time.

 

It needn't be a big thing about Murdoch's power though. Sue your own company in most industries and you would expect you own behaviour to be pretty closely looked at.

 

Defo. Producers who bear a grudge manufacture boss-pleasing and vengeance-satisfying dismissal. Definitely something more sinister in the splicing of the first tape. It's as if they've said, "It doesn't matter if it's crude - it's plenty enough for Gray's job."

 

You've got to hand it to Rupe.