Sounds like it was company equipment. Which makes everything done and said on it property of the company so doesn't effect privacy laws or data protection unless the company published content that infringed on individuals private details...address, bank account nos etc..in fact a lot of companies (mine included) have started adding social media under this umbrella, it becomes disciplinary if you can be identified as an employee of the company while posting anything that could harm the reputation of the company. It's a new grey area not explored in law enough yet. Also a judge issued a search warrant which allowed the seizure of the data. In response I might add to an attempt by malaky to sue tan ....so he poked the hornets nest with a stick the thick twat. It also appears that in one of the texts he called Tan a chink. Maybe I'm petty and spiteful but if I'd sacked a guy for what I believed were valid reasons, who clearly disrespected me as a boss, tried to sue me until I got my hands on this info which maybe solidified my opinion of what I'd experienced with him as an employee, continued to bad mouth me and then looked like walking into a job with reputation intact, am I suppose to lie and tell Palace "yeah he's a great guy, nothing to report even though I sacked him" I believe it's an FA requirement to pass on any issues. If he hadn't and the behaviour was repeated at Palace , became public and embarrassing for palace and they then found out it had all happened before at Cardiff, could they not have sued Cardiff for non disclosure under the FA rules? On the LMA trivialsation. It just sounded like they handed it to an inexperienced PR writer who focussed too much on the primary job of protecting their member rather than the wider story and how it would be received. I've heard lots of shouting that it shows continued institutional racism. If this was the case it wouldn't be a story. It was a bad mistake but maybe it does reflect that their membership I.e managers are predominantly white. Not racists just not used to having to frame thoughts with that in mind like they would if their membership was more ethnically diverse. Incompetent. Interestingly on five live yesterday I listened to an ex black player who'd been asked to comment (didn't catch his name) make exactly the same mistake he was criticising the LMA for. He started saying how angry the LMA statement had made him because it trivialized racism but then went on to say, "and yeah the sexist stuff, that's just laughable , I mean like two young boys" Now I know what he meant but the words he chose to use in public could be construed as trivializing the sexist comments in the texts as "just childish" that's sounds awfully like "just banter" doesn't it? . So sexism not as serious as racism when texting....except in the work place they are considered equally a disciplinary matter. I just found it interesting he didn't realise he'd made the same mistake as he'd criticized a moment before just not about his particular issue. Shows how easy it can be done I suppose. As for Malakys future in football, he made his bed publicly so he'll have to suffer for that. If he can convince a high profile club he's a changed man, fair enough. But I'll not blame clubs if they refuse to take the chance on him again.
Well then that was the mistake he must have apologised for in that interview... It is incredible how some of us are still stuck in the 70s and 80s thinking. It is all private and should stay between two individuals. That it should not stop us from working with people we decry as ", dog eating cnks, easily jumped on, with falises, money grabbing jew ..." Of course not. But then is it acceptable to be sending all these things on a work phone about work colleagues? It seems that it is not only Mackay who should enrol for equality and diversity education...
In fact it doesn't even have to be company owned equipment. If you voluntarily use your own equipment for work use you can be giving the company permission to monitor that usage. Ideally your employer should make this clear from the start in a policy document that you sign.
Sounds like you should be referred to the Thought Police with your "It is incredible how some of us are still stuck in the 70s and 80s thinking. It is all private and should stay between two individuals. That it should not stop us from working with people we decry as ", dog eating cnks, easily jumped on, with falises, money grabbing jew ..."" Who gives you the right to define what is actually morally or even legally acceptable based upon what - nothing more than popular opinion! Seems to me that when you actually grow up you just may understand just how slippery the condemnatory slope is that presently stand upon.
Of course there is no way I can acquire the degree of wisdom of someone as wise as you. Nor would I wish to pretend to. But it seems to me when someone resorts to this sort of stuff, then they are starting to lose the argument. I am actually quite old (not saying how old) but I have been through the various eras when it was acceptable to call people names like WOGs, chinkys, japs, pakis, queers and call it "banter". Anyone objecting would be categorised as touchy and devoid of a sense of humour etc. I have seen the change through the decades and the country (UK) is a much nicer place to live in than it was in the 70s or 80s.
The country is a different place to live in than it was in the 70s or 80s there is no way that you can truly define if it is better or it is worse. It depends upon your perspective. You may be old but that does not make you right. Neither does it make me right. However, I will comment loudly when people like you assume a moral high ground that they can only aspire to yet demand is imposed upon others. There are thoughts and conversations that you would not wish to be made public regarding other people that could probably be viewed in the same way as Macay's. Therefore what is the difference? - only that you were not exposed! Sounds like a very solid high ground to me - not!. Therefore, I despise the present day hypocrisy and those who trot it out blindly.
Thank you for confirming my point. You told me to grow up, as if age would make me wiser... I wish that could be true of some of my contemporaries. You would have noticed that nowhere have I said that I was right because I was old. In fact I can say that I am really proud of some of the young people of today and put to shame some of my generation who view things like that as acceptable and banter. Any condemnation of unacceptable practice or behaviour is immediately dismissed as hypocrisy, thought police, PC gone mad. What they don't realise is that this country has matured and mostly left the old bigotries behind. Was it not so long ago that we were so proud of our football crowds and how progressive they were compared to the bigoted Ukranian ones? It is never acceptable to communicate to another member of staff about colleagues in such a derogatory way. In writing in a work phone. I have never done it and if you have then good luck to you.
You still miss the point completely! If you think the thought then it supposedly taints you just as much as if you verbalised/published it. You may never have done a lot of things in a work environment but we will never know if you thought them. If you have ever had 'nasty' thoughts about any of your colleagues or customers or competitors or suppliers or whoever in your own time, maybe in your own home and expressed them to your family or friends are you not being hypocritical? After all it must demonstrate that you are tainted by those kinds of thoughts. According to you it is never acceptable. So yes I do believe that experience (which unfortunately for most of us is linked to time and therefore age) should help in looking at situations with a little more clarity and recognising the absurdity of the some of the claims/demands that are made.
I cannot recall saying that anyone with nasty "unacceptable" thoughts should be brought to book. I said that Mackay having written down these thoughts about others at work ( players, agents, owners etc) and communicated them to a colleague using a work phone and then discovered and made public, deserve all he gets. This IS NOT thought police matter. This is documented evidence Why did Mackay immediately drop any claims against tan and apologise profusely at the time? He knew it was wrong and had no leg to stand on. No court in the land will find in his favour having written these things and none will not rule in tan's favour for dismissing him. We have heard of a player who accused Mackay of abusing him racially. May be that player had a point?
This is documented evidence of WHAT? It may indicate bad taste but it proves exactly what in relation to Macay? So I ask the question again it's evidence of what? From this so called evidence what can you deduce? Is Macay a liar? Is he a thief? Can you prove that he is a poor manager? Has he proved himself to be racist, sexist, etc. etc. in his management? Then you try and tell me that this is not a thought police matter! Why did he apologise? I can only guess. But there is a strong probability that no matter what his true feelings on the whole issue he is being painted into a corner where he can do nothing lese to try and save his career. As for the player - please tell me why he waited to this point to make any public comment sounds fishy to me. As for your "I cannot recall saying that anyone with nasty "unacceptable" thoughts should be brought to book." you really are playing games.
You betray yourself there, Danilo. Apparently, you've said worse than him, and we know that you are a sensible non-racist non-sexist man. So, you define the difference between you and Mackay only as Mackay's naivety of digitalising his words. Makay is then as progressive as you, but simply naive enough to trust the privacy of his phone in this day and age? It seems Foredeckdave is correct even by you.
Given the other guy dropped his law suit with tan like a hot snot and apologised previously I can only conclude that the moment tan head they were to team up at palace he decided to wheel out the stuff he had over the pair and ruin them..... One can only guess what kinds of threats and dealings went on here We I think are only seeing about 1% of it. I'd hope that whatever happens with Macay and the texts that tan himself is outed as a low handed corrupt piece of dirt too
Yep, the situation that brought about the insensible comments is totally relevant. Carlthejackal and others can take the moral highground, but I don't think they've ever been manipulated privately and publicly by an illogical twisted maniac of the ilk of Vincent Tan, as Makay was during his tenure at Cardiff. Vincent Tan absolutely got under his skin and Moody's. It was a civil war in there. So, Mackay and Moody became 'war buddies' and upped the rhetoric a tad to get their battlefield juices going. I can justify Makay from that angle.
so you call all these things he texted " bad taste" ? ..WOW!!! Well nuff said. I can now see where you are coming from I prefer to end our discussion here. You can say you've won if you wish. I am honestly not bothered.
Not kept up with this one but have now seen the list of offensive texts, can't find anywhere were it states who sent them between the two. I saw on focus that MM apologised for three texts he sent but up till now had the feeling that that Ian fella was blowing smoke up his bosses arse by sending him the majority and MM responded to a few. Of course that raises another point that if two people who work closely together like those two, and the subordinate (who knows his boss well), sends those types of texts knowing they won't be frowned on, or at least he wont be pulled up over them, it may tell us more about MM than any of the vitriol currently doing the rounds.
A relative of mine sent a photo from facebook to one of the partners in the firm he worked for (it was a photo of the team my relative played for and the partner helps run). The partner was away on holiday so his PA opened it and saw some swearing in one of the comments made by another player in the team, my relative had inadvertently copied the comments as well. The PA complained as she claimed she was offended by the language, my relative was given a formal warning and advised if he did it again he would be dismissed even though he used his own phone and had not sent the photo during work time. People must realise that to send a text or email is the modern equivalent of of putting said matter in writing, and sending a photo by electronic means is the same as putting a framed photograph in front of someone to look at. For some reason people think that if something is sent electronically/digitally it is only temporary and can be cancelled by deleting, once sent it is out there forever and traceable.
What is sad in that little story is how 1 person (the PA) is supported by the law to bring their own prejudices into play irrespective of the context of the post.
The problem is every office/workplace has someone who is just waiting to be offended, often the person who does the least work and is building up as many incidents of "being offended" as possible so that if they are ever threatened with the sack for being useless they can try to sue for harassment, etc
