Off Topic CHELSEA SUPPORTING LAWYER DISMISSED AFTER LIVERPOOL RANT

Have scousers been slaves! Were you uprooted from your homes, sailed across the ocean and sold to some rich guy and tortured for the rest of your life? Were you banned from using various buildings, public transport, barred from clubs, jobs and treated as a second class, maybe worse citizen? Were you beaten to death for who you were?

Black people were. Don't compare someone saying scouse scum to racial abuse.

 

They own the company, they set the terms and conditions of employment, he signed them, he broke them..as a lawyer I'm sure he didn't sign them unknowingly.

You said earlier to Tobes it wouldn't matter how he was employed. What about if he was community outreach...in say Liverpool..? Companies aren't going to make individual terms and conditions regarding their reputation based on the past times of their employees. If they didn't uphold this time they create precedent...Lawyers don't like that..it bites you in the arse later.

In case you haven't noticed most policy is made by people who assume what offends and doesn't. Even some of the legislation or ar least its application regarding gender and race is questioned by the very minorities its suppose to protect. Doesn't mean its totally invalid. It's usually as I said earlier about being risk adverse.

His company saw that he spectacularly breached his conditions. They saw it as bad PR and attempted to turn it into good PR.

And as a "top" insurance lawyer you can be damned sure he made his name using terms and conditions, clauses and small print to make his firm money at the expense of those who signed and paid the policies. Thats how they make money ffs!

So, no sympathy really...

 

Yes, his boss is offended on yours and every others scousers behalf.

His boss thinks you're too stupid to decide what offends you so he's taken it upon himself to do the hard work for you.

 

It would have made no difference if he worked on Liverpool or Bangor. It was poor football banter. It could and should have been handled far better.

The whole thing is a farce. From the terms (its a ****ing sentence that is about as loose a term you can have) of his employment, to his sacking. Poorly handled.

 

Shame on the ****......****in gobshite.

See the thing is, I wouldn't want anyone sacked ideally.

However something like the sack is the only thing that would humble a twat like that.

That wasn't even 'banter' that was pure hatred and all because the scum lost.

**** him...Kaaant.

 

United fans are just sucking dick because it was anti Liverpool.

 

Name a black person you know alive this happened to? You can't so this line is stupidly simplistic.

A more sophisticated approach would be that people create social constructs with which to discriminate others. Race is certainly one, religion another, class one more and yes, geographical location

Laws exist based on past discrimination so common it is institutionalised and law is the only way to break it.

In ordinary conversation there is no actual difference in intent or effect in discriminating against someone because of the colour of their skin or where they live.its a social construct.

If you are arguing against this then you are contradicting yourself. Who are you to decide for every black person what should be offensive or not to them?

 

It was banter. At Chelsea fan level. Take Bodanki on here, he doesn't understand the rivalry between United and Liverpool. That's the same for Chelsea fans, so their idea of football banter is swearing a lot.

I seriously doubt these are his actual views. Had he referred to then as bindippers, I seriously doubt he would actually see them as bin raiding scruffs.

 

Black people and all races are afforded such protections because they have no say in the colour of their skin. Same with sexual preference and birth country. On top of the centuries of persecution of course.

That's why they have laws protecting them from people using the phrase black scum. These people are rarely angry football fans (these days) but usually organised groups who are actually a threat to the safety of others. Had the guy used the phrase black scum, he would be in a jail cell right now.

Sacked would be the least of his issues. He also wouldn't be getting another job, ever. Because racism is far, far worse than **** bitter banter.

 

The majority of companies check facebook, etc when employing people. It's what HR do now. Most employers will do anything to avoid the cost of having to sack someone who proves not to be up to the job after being taken on. If extra, legal, checks can be done they are, to avoid the cost of an unfair dismissal tribunal. As we know no one nowadays will accept they have been sacked because they are crap at their job, there is always another reason.

 

Seriously, t

He wasn't crap. Quite the opposite seemingly. The best.

But yes, I agree, that's the nature of the world. Though I disagree with the insinuation the employer is crap rather than the company.

Poor training, poor support, poor terms of employment, poor understanding of illness and sickness, an obsession with working employees to death.... This is the face of UK business.

 

None of which apply to this case.

 

I was not suggesting he was crap at his job, the opposite is true in fact. I was saying the reason companies check the internet before employing people is because it may prove costly if they do not. References are taken for the same reason. In the past employers would have an off the record chat with past employers for extra information knowing that references would be bland to avoid the subject taking offence.

Provided the information they check is openly available they can do what they want. They only break the law if they hack phones or peoples facebook.

It is surprising what people will put on their facebook pages and have the page open for anyone to view.

A relative of mine named an individual who had been convicted of a serious offence even though the Judge in the case had ruled the person should not be named. I suggested he take the post down before anyone reported it and luckily for him nothing came of it.

Remember all those celebs who named Lord MacAlpine as a peado, they all got sued and had to pay up to the charity he nominated.

Anyone who appears in the media and online ranting like an idiot deserves all they get. It is worse if the person concerned is in a position of resposibility as they undermine their own position.

 

Like no choice in what city you were born?

As I said its no different if the effect of act is the same.

The laws exist because the act was different i.e. suppression of freedom of life, movement or equality of opportunity. The fact that those acts were also accompanied by acts of verbal abuse is why the law includes restrictions on the verbal abuse too. If it had never been more than verbal i very much doubt the laws would exist.

The act of slagging someone off based on something arbitrary be it the colour of their skin or where they were born or lived is the same. Its picking something irrelevant to assign a negative attribute to a person, usually because you don"t know the person and have nothing else to justify abusing them.

What Page argued earlier is no different than what you are arguing. Institutions used these stereotypes of the class and past times of a city to decide they didn't deserve the same protection under criminal and civil law.

You can not argue on one hand that the act of verbal abuse using arbitrary facts as insults is integral to institutional abuse on a bigger scale then deny it on the other. Facts are facts.

This guy wasn't bantering he was abusing. Bantering is an understanding between two people that no real disrespect is intended and the verbal exchange is for fun. None of this guys outbursts fall under that description.

 

Yet you **** it when you got a couple of Not606 alerts

 

UIR talking about racism lol.
My signature says it all

 

I actually doubt he ever goes to many football games given the level of his anger at the 'sacked in the morning chant' - he's obviously never heard it before at relevant times at most football grounds, including ours [Rafa and Rodgers]. I don't know any football fans who have ever been offended by it. He doesn't pronounce Mourinho's name right which is odd for a 'Chelsea fan since I was a boy' .... the rant about Ancelotti a 'lot older than Mourinho' [he's only 4 years older] ...... 'the FA is led by a corrupt man' ??? What's he on about? Not the talk of a football fan who knows anything about football.

 

The plastic coating on him is still wet, he'll be promoted to Headhunter status in a couple of years.

 

Maybe they couldn't get any regulars to go in the corporate box so he volunteered. I just re-watched the video and he actually looks round for the camera when he says 'scouse scum' so he can get his angry face in the shot If only he knew at that moment the significance of the sacked in the morning song, he will never forget it ...

And I actually hate seeing anyone lose their job.

 

i seriously can't understand why you think it's justified at any level.

It was pure hatred, that **** was frothing at his mouth and stuttering his words because he was so full of bile.

And well, next time someone asks him his views, maybe he should give his actual views then...and not some load of bollocks to make him look like an 'ard Kaant...there's only two sets of people brushing his vitriol under the carpet.

Mancs, red ones at that......and that fair weather bunch.