https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/57335528

I'm sure he's had to apologise because of a perceived threat of a fine by the ECB.

We live in an awful woke world where gagging and PC enforced by law are rife. Just as we're free to call out or killfile racist gits like the one here on UKSC, he too should be equally free to spew his bile. To gag or threaten racists only engenders hypocrisy, with views of public figures having little resemblance to true, private views or behaviours.

Nearly each of us loathes racism (I know I do) but I loathe PC and censorship equally.

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 4:29:44 AM UTC+1, chandelle wrote:
> https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/57335528
>
> I'm sure he's had to apologise because of a perceived threat of a fine by the ECB.
>
> We live in an awful woke world where gagging and PC enforced by law are rife. Just as we're free to call out or killfile racist gits like the one here on UKSC, he too should be equally free to spew his bile. To gag or threaten racists only engenders hypocrisy, with views of public figures having little resemblance to true, private views or behaviours.
>
> Nearly each of us loathes racism (I know I do) but I loathe PC and censorship equally.

Classic BBC not to print what was actually written. Here are examples from the Telegraph

'The offensive tweets included: “I wonder if Asian people put smileys like this ¦) #racist”; “My new muslim friend is the bomb. #wheeyyyyy”; “Real n----- don’t let the microwave hit 0:00”; and “Wash your fingers for the mingers #cuban”.'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2021/06/02/england-debutant-ollie-robinson-ashamed-twitter-racism-storm/

What was sinister is the fact that Robinson did not bowl after over 61 yesterday despite being the best England bowler. If that was because the story was already known by the England hierarchy and he was deliberately not bowled you would have the pc crowd directly affecting a Test match.

If Robinson is not used today as one would expect it would taint the entire Test match and the series.

Robinson is not the only England contender who is threatened by the pc police . . Craig Overton is also under threat:

" It comes the day after Robinson’s rival for the last fast-bowling spot in the team this week, Craig Overton, spoke about the accusation that he had racially abused Ashar Zaidi in a match between Somerset and Sussex in 2015. The umpire in that match, Alex Wharf, reported that Overton had told Zaidi to “go back to your own fucking country”. The batsman at the non-striker’s end, Michael Yardy, also heard the remark. Overton was banned for two matches for using “obscene, offensive, or insulting language” but denied making the comment. And in an interview with Taha Hashim on wisden.com this week, he said again “I don’t believe I said it”.

“I don’t believe that I’m that sort of character. We’ve had Azhar Ali in our changing room and I’m the first one to go up and speak to him in the changing room and have a chat with him. I’m not that sort of person,” Overton said. “We have chats about racism every year and I’m making sure I’m learning as much as possible because we can all learn more about what’s happened in the past and what we can do in the future.” Judging him on his words in that interview alone, it sounds as if he has some more learning to do."
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/jun/02/ollie-robinsons-racist-tweets-prove-english-cricket-still-has-much-to-learn

RH We have reached a point where potentially any England player can be accused of racism as a means of manipulating a cricket match. That is a very dangerous road to go down. RH

Free expression is a treasure to be guarded if a free society is to exist:

https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/free-expression-or-permitted-opinion-that-is-the-choice/
Free expression or permitted opinion: that is the choice
Robert Henderson

‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton – Areogapitica].

Milton’s words perhaps contain more significance than he realised, for a society only becomes wholeheartedly tyrannical when censorship allows no effective opposition. To take a most dramatic instance, if the Nazis had been forced by frequently expressed contrary public opinion to explain their policy of genocide to the German people, it is highly improbable that the whole grisly business would have been mooted, for we know that even without any serious public opposition the Nazis went to considerable lengths, in the midst of a most tremendous war, to persuade the mass of Germans that Jews were simply being resettled or, at worst, used as forced labour.

Without free expression, democracy cannot function because the whole purpose of democracy is to allow any view to be put forward for public acceptance or rejection.

But although free expression is a golden prize, it is also one of the hardest things for men (of all political stamps) to practise, there being the most magnetic temptation for anyone to engage in the self-serving delusion that the suppression of contrary opinion is not an abrogation of free expression but the legitimate exclusion of dangerous ideas. Milton himself fell prey to this temptation once his political “side” gained the ascendancy during the Commonwealth and Protectorate.

The idea that free expression can exist whilst restrictions on what may be said are in force is a literal nonsense because free expression is indivisible. Its essence is that it is not a negotiable quality; you either have it or a range of permitted opinion which may be altered at any point by the ruling elite, the mass media, unelected pressure groups, terrorists and the Mob.

Britain a free country?

It is often claimed – perhaps never more frequently than at present by our political elite – that Britain is a free country where a man may say what he wants. This has always been less than the truth and the limits of free expression are growing ever narrower both through pernicious effect of political correctness which insists, like all totalitarian creeds, that the only permissible view is that of political correctness, and the ever expanding legal limitations through legislation and the judgements of judges especially in privacy cases.

A surprising number of laws restricting free speech now exist in Britain. It is presently circumscribed by the laws relating to libel, slander, confidence, blasphemy, obscenity, official secrets, equal opportunities and race/ethnic relations. Government departments and agencies, local municipalities, private corporate bodies and private citizens may also obtain injunctions to prevent both the expression of views and physical demonstrations. In addition, the police have practically unlimited powers to prevent a man speaking if it is judged that the words uttered are ‘likely to cause a breach of the peace’ and may limit public demonstrations almost at will.

There are laws which are not immediately obvious to the public as being restricted of free expression. The Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) forces all taxpayer funded bodies to prove they are not engaged in discrimination even unwittingly. The Prevention of Harassment Act (1997) makes contact with someone potentially illegal if they do it more than once after someone has said they do not want contact with you (this covers disputes with companies and officialdom as well as individuals). The Public Order Act (1986) reiterates and strengthens the provisions against inciting racial hatred in the Race Relations Act (1976, but also has a broad definition of harassment in a public place:

“5 Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—.

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour,
or.

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting…” (http://www.legislation.gov..uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5)

The there is the Malicious Communications Act (1988. This deals with any communication by post, phone or other electronic media:

“1 Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety..

(1)Any person who sends to another person—.

(a)a [F1letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys—.

(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;.

(ii)a threat; or.

(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or.

(b)any [F2article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.” (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1)

The other Acts which indirectly restrict free expression because they provide for increased police powers of arrest and powers of search. These are:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Criminal Justice Act 1987

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

Terrorism Act 2000

The Police Reform Act 2002

Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005

The full text of these Acts can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/.. Just put the title of the Act you want into the search facility.

To these legal barriers must be added the voluntary code of practice which is policed by the Press Complaints Commission. This contains such widely drawn and imprecise restrictions as:

“The Press should avoid prejudicial or pejorative references to a person’s race, colour, religion, sex or sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or handicap.”

and

“It should avoid publishing details of a person’s race, colour, religion, sex or sexual orientation, unless these are directly relevant to the story.”

In message <0b50fd3e-f25f-449f-b323-beab5188db97n@googlegroups.com>,
chandelle <rama@samura.ai> writes
>https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/57335528
>
>I'm sure he's had to apologise because of a perceived threat of a fine
>by the ECB.
>
>We live in an awful woke world where gagging and PC enforced by law are
>rife. Just as we're free to call out or killfile racist gits like the
>one here on UKSC, he too should be equally free to spew his bile. To
>gag or threaten racists only engenders hypocrisy, with views of public
>figures having little resemblance to true, private views or behaviours.
>
>Nearly each of us loathes racism (I know I do) but I loathe PC and
>censorship equally.
>

In this case, though, given that he's going to have to play with
non-white teammates in the England side in future - the team playing in
the current match is rather unusual in not containing any - it's hard to
see how he could continue in the side if he didn't disavow those tweets.
Otherwise it would be a recipe for dressing room disharmony which would
be bound to impact on performances on the field.
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

Meh. Racism is racism.
Public comments like this can cost ECB sponsorship.
Cricket is a business now.

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 11:40:50 AM UTC+4, John Hall wrote:
> >
> In this case, though, given that he's going to have to play with
> non-white teammates in the England side in future - the team playing in
> the current match is rather unusual in not containing any - it's hard to
> see how he could continue in the side if he didn't disavow those tweets.
> Otherwise it would be a recipe for dressing room disharmony which would
> be bound to impact on performances on the field.

Dressing room harmony can also be disrupted by someone being racist without being public about it. My plaint is against censorship which by all accounts has reached considerably restrictive levels in the western world. It seems acceptable that one can be a bigot/racist/whatever so long as he doesn't show his bigotry openly, which is especially true for public figures.

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:29:43 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <rama@samura.ai>
wrote:

>https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/57335528
>
>I'm sure he's had to apologise because of a perceived threat of a fine by the ECB.
>
>We live in an awful woke world where gagging and PC enforced by law are rife.

"Woke" and "PC" are simply what right-wing bigots call politeness and
civilised behaviour.

That (predominantly) white men have been able to be shits in public
for so long wihout any comeback doesn't mean it's a bad thing that
they're now being called out for being shits and that their shitty
behaviour has consequences.

They've been handing out offensive abuse which at best upsets people
and at worst leads to murdering and incarcerating people for the
"crime" of not being white, male, Christian and heterosexual for a
long time and are upset when people object? Cry me a fucking river.

Of course you have the right to be a shit, but it doesn't come with an
attendant right to be immune from other people telling you that you're
a shit.

Cheers,

Mike

On 03 Jun 2021, Mike Holmans wrote

> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 20:29:43 -0700 (PDT), chandelle
> <rama@samura.ai> wrote:
>
>> https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/57335528
>>
>> I'm sure he's had to apologise because of a perceived threat of a
>> fine by the ECB.
>>
>> We live in an awful woke world where gagging and PC enforced by
>> law are rife.
>
> "Woke" and "PC" are simply what right-wing bigots call politeness
> and civilised behaviour.
>
> That (predominantly) white men have been able to be shits in
> public for so long wihout any comeback doesn't mean it's a bad
> thing that they're now being called out for being shits and that
> their shitty behaviour has consequences.
>
> They've been handing out offensive abuse which at best upsets
> people and at worst leads to murdering and incarcerating people
> for the "crime" of not being white, male, Christian and
> heterosexual for a long time and are upset when people object? Cry
> me a fucking river.
>
> Of course you have the right to be a shit, but it doesn't come
> with an attendant right to be immune from other people telling you
> that you're a shit.

I agree entirely with you, but I must say I'm glad the dumb things I
proobablyb/inevitably said and did when I was a teenager aren't
sitting in some readily-accessible archive to be used against me.

--
Cheers, Harvey

On Thu, 03 Jun 2021 13:36:46 +0100, HVS <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>I agree entirely with you, but I must say I'm glad the dumb things I
>proobablyb/inevitably said and did when I was a teenager aren't
>sitting in some readily-accessible archive to be used against me.

Agreed.

Where I very slightly agree with the right-wing bigots is on the
po-faced solemn apologies and formal statements.

I'd far prefer him to have said something along the lines of "Yup.
Sorry, folks. I was a stupid twat when I was 17, and I wish I hadn't
been, but now I've grown up and stopped being a twat."

Cheers,

Mike

On 03 Jun 2021, Mike Holmans wrote

> On Thu, 03 Jun 2021 13:36:46 +0100, HVS
> <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree entirely with you, but I must say I'm glad the dumb
>> things I proobablyb/inevitably said and did when I was a teenager
>> aren't sitting in some readily-accessible archive to be used
>> against me.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Where I very slightly agree with the right-wing bigots is on the
> po-faced solemn apologies and formal statements.
>
> I'd far prefer him to have said something along the lines of "Yup.
> Sorry, folks. I was a stupid twat when I was 17, and I wish I
> hadn't been, but now I've grown up and stopped being a twat."

Yup; that would be a lot better.

--
Cheers, Harvey

In article <XnsAD3E90EC5921Bwhhvans@144.76.35.252>, HVS
<office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes
>On 03 Jun 2021, Mike Holmans wrote
>
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2021 13:36:46 +0100, HVS
>> <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree entirely with you, but I must say I'm glad the dumb
>>> things I proobablyb/inevitably said and did when I was a teenager
>>> aren't sitting in some readily-accessible archive to be used
>>> against me.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Where I very slightly agree with the right-wing bigots is on the
>> po-faced solemn apologies and formal statements.
>>
>> I'd far prefer him to have said something along the lines of "Yup.
>> Sorry, folks. I was a stupid twat when I was 17, and I wish I
>> hadn't been, but now I've grown up and stopped being a twat."
>
>Yup; that would be a lot better.
>
But offensive to twats.:-)
--
Bert

On Thursday, 3 June 2021 at 12:51:15 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:

> "Woke" and "PC" are simply what right-wing bigots call politeness and
> civilised behaviour.

Woke and PC are also usually followed by "brigade" by the gammons.

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 5:59:04 PM UTC+10, chandelle wrote:
> It seems acceptable that one can be a bigot/racist/whatever so long as he doesn't show his bigotry openly

umm... yes. This is how it should be (in a world with bigotry).

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 3:51:15 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> Of course you have the right to be a shit, but it doesn't come with an
> attendant right to be immune from other people telling you that you're
> a shit.

My point exactly. Everyone has a right to his views, including criticism of racism, which anyone with a smidgen of decency should. I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended and (b) sanctions such as penalties, suspensions and dismissals for holding a view, howsoever loathsome it may be.

Even he who's been very careful to not publicly state his racist views is no less a bigot than someone who does, surely?

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 6:33:04 AM UTC+1, chandelle wrote:
> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 3:51:15 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >
> > Of course you have the right to be a shit, but it doesn't come with an
> > attendant right to be immune from other people telling you that you're
> > a shit.
> My point exactly. Everyone has a right to his views, including criticism of racism, which anyone with a smidgen of decency should. I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended and (b) sanctions such as penalties, suspensions and dismissals for holding a view, howsoever loathsome it may be.
>
> Even he who's been very careful to not publicly state his racist views is no less a bigot than someone who does, surely?

The classic totalitarian mindset.... RH

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:33:04 PM UTC+10, chandelle wrote:
> I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended

Too fucking bad. There's a reason hate speech is banned.

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:49:38 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:33:04 PM UTC+10, chandelle wrote:
> > I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended
> Too fucking bad. There's a reason hate speech is banned.

Yep, the bogus census of "hate speech" is a concept created by politically correct to control society. RH

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 7:33:19 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:49:38 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:33:04 PM UTC+10, chandelle wrote:
> > > I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended
> > Too fucking bad. There's a reason hate speech is banned.
> Yep, the bogus census of "hate speech" is a concept created by politically correct to control society. RH

That's what ALL our laws are...

On Friday, 4 June 2021 at 11:03:05 UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 7:33:19 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:49:38 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:33:04 PM UTC+10, chandelle wrote:
> > > > I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended
> > > Too fucking bad. There's a reason hate speech is banned.
> > Yep, the bogus census of "hate speech" is a concept created by politically correct to control society. RH
> That's what ALL our laws are...
Well said Mike. Completely agree with how you have expressed this.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 22:33:03 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <rama@samura.ai>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 3:51:15 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>> Of course you have the right to be a shit, but it doesn't come with an
>> attendant right to be immune from other people telling you that you're
>> a shit.
>
>
>My point exactly. Everyone has a right to his views, including criticism of racism, which anyone with a smidgen of decency should. I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended and (b) sanctions such as penalties, suspensions and dismissals for holding a view, howsoever loathsome it may be.

If an employer hires someone who subsequently publicly expresses those
loathsome views, the employer may suffer reputational damage, which
can end up causing the business considerable financial harm. It can
lead to the business being disrupted by protests and boycotts,
particularly if they fail to at least discipline the employee. Not to
mention the disruption to the company's operations caused by other
employees reacting to what has been revealed about their colleague.

The company's shareholders are unlikely to be pleased if the company's
profits decline and the business loses customers because the company
is seen to be a haven for loathsome people.

Companies have a fiduciary duty to protect the value of the
investments which have been made in the business and would open
themselves to legal action by their shareholders were they not to take
steps to protect their business.

Are you categorically against companies protecting themselves against
loss of business and/or legal action?

Cheers,

Mike

On 04/06/2021 10:33, RH wrote:
> On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:49:38 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:33:04 PM UTC+10, chandelle wrote:
>>> I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended
>> Too fucking bad. There's a reason hate speech is banned.
>
>
> Yep, the bogus census of "hate speech" is a concept created by politically correct to control society. RH
>

OR at least *their* definition of "hate speech", rather than the
dictionary definition of it!
--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 7:03:33 AM UTC-4, Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> Are you categorically against companies protecting themselves against
> loss of business and/or legal action?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

Only when it inconveniences white people. If you can make money by catering to white people not wanting to be exposed to brown people, that's the sacred free market at work.

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:03:33 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >
> >My point exactly. Everyone has a right to his views, including criticism of racism, which anyone with a smidgen of decency should. I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended and (b) sanctions such as penalties, suspensions and dismissals for holding a view, howsoever loathsome it may be.
> If an employer hires someone who subsequently publicly expresses those
> loathsome views, the employer may suffer reputational damage, which
> can end up causing the business considerable financial harm.

The employer shouldn't. Each person is an individual and doesn't represent the company itself. Furthermore, when you avail an organisation's services or buy their products, you do so for what they offer, not because of the individual views of its employees. As a ready example, the bloke who was in a way the face of Subway got arrested a decade or so ago because some child porn was found on his laptop. Did anyone stop eating at Subway because of that? Not that I've heard of. And if they did, I'd regard it as absurd.

> It can lead to the business being disrupted by protests and boycotts,
> particularly if they fail to at least discipline the employee.

Was it always like that? This isn't even akin to the Charlie Hebdo matter, mind you, where they printing something from their employee meant that they endorsed it - and AFAIK, regardless of what one's views about their coarse cartoons were, most people resisted the protests and attempts to stifle free expression, and that's how it should be, IMO. It's not as if someone is infringing on your freedom or physically assaulting you or even verbally abusing you, all of which are of course not on.

> Not to mention the disruption to the company's operations caused by other
> employees reacting to what has been revealed about their colleague.

Well, if the same degree of freedom existed to everyone, that mightn't happen as regularly as you think, but I could be wrong in that assumption. The reaction and disruption may be a product of the current atmosphere of curbs..

> The company's shareholders are unlikely to be pleased if the company's
> profits decline and the business loses customers because the company
> is seen to be a haven for loathsome people.
>
> Companies have a fiduciary duty to protect the value of the
> investments which have been made in the business and would open
> themselves to legal action by their shareholders were they not to take
> steps to protect their business.

I've no argument against any of that but does that imply that for one to freely air his view, he should be unattached to a business, i.e. be unemployed or some such? Most troubling.

> Are you categorically against companies protecting themselves against
> loss of business and/or legal action?

Again, I'm open to be corrected but loss of business or legal action is because of the mores and framework of laws that currently exist. I'd love to hear about how it was 40-50 years ago in the corporate world; can't imagine it'd have been the same.

Btw, Robinson has been suspended for the next Test. I truly feel for him. There seem to only be a narrow range of views that one can express freely. A star as big as Novak Djokovic too has stated that more than once; "If I say what I truly speak, I know I'll be suspended" is I think what he said. It really should chill the blood of anyone who values the freedom of expression.

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:51:49 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <rama@samura.ai>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:03:33 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> >
>> >My point exactly. Everyone has a right to his views, including criticism of racism, which anyone with a smidgen of decency should. I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended and (b) sanctions such as penalties, suspensions and dismissals for holding a view, howsoever loathsome it may be.
>> If an employer hires someone who subsequently publicly expresses those
>> loathsome views, the employer may suffer reputational damage, which
>> can end up causing the business considerable financial harm.
>
>
>The employer shouldn't. Each person is an individual and doesn't represent the company itself. Furthermore, when you avail an organisation's services or buy their products, you do so for what they offer, not because of the individual views of its employees. As a ready example, the bloke who was in a way the face of Subway got arrested a decade or so ago because some child porn was found on his laptop. Did anyone stop eating at Subway because of that? Not that I've heard of. And if they did, I'd regard it as absurd.

You're entitled to think society is absurd.

Businesses who behave as though they think society is absurd, though,
tend to stop being businesses after a certain length of time.

Law firms, for instance, which discover that a partner has acquired an
unpleasant public reputation know that a number of potential clients
will seek the services of other firms while that partner taints their
reputation. When a business seeks to attract customers because it has
great people working for it, it isn't a great selling point if it is
public knowledge that one of the partners is a loathsome toad. You may
consider it absurd that people seeking professional advice prefer to
seek it from people they believe to be sane and reasonable rather than
subscribers to the kind of delusional beliefs that the imbecile so
regularly professes, but I can say that it would certainly affect
decisions that I personally might make in that regard.

If fellow employees discover that their colleague is a loathsome toad
and start treating him as though he is a loathsome toad, that may not
be very nice of them, but it does rather pose a problem for the
business. Should the loathsome toad be in a position of responsibility
involving performance assessment or work assignment, it is quite
likely that those who are the objects of his derision or prejudice are
liable to start complaining about the loathsome toad and appealing
against the loathsome toad's decisions. Even in the unlikely event
that the loathsome toad's decisions have been completely unaffected by
his loathsome personality, it will absorb a great deal of management
time to investigate each complaint and go through the necessary
procedures. If on the other hand it turns out that the loathsome
toad's prejudices have affectd his decision-making, there will be
legal costs and compensation to be paid, as well as the rescinding of
previous actions.

And those to whom he reports will probably weigh what they now know
about the loathsome toad when they consider what the loathsome toad
tells them. If the toad's job is to diagnose faults in hardware, they
may well consider what he says to be useful, but should it involve
personnel decisions, they might start considering it less reliable.
Having an employee on whose information they do not feel they can rely
is not a good way to run a company.

Continuing to employ loathsome toads is bad for business. You may
consider that absurd, but there we are.

You appear to believe that the right to speak freely means that there
should be no consequences for doing so. Why on earth should saying
things be the only actions a human being can take without there being
consequences? Everything else we do is usually considered to be our
responsibility, and we are often held accountable for what we have
done. Sometimes by state actors such as the police and judiciary but
much more often by the people with whom we interact. We stop liking
them, trusting them, wanting to be in their company or be married to
them because of what they do, and in a huge number of those cases it
is because of something they said. And nowadays, it can easily be
because of old posts they made on FB or Twitter.

Human nature may well be absurd. Maybe people should not be
judgmental, but you're battling against tens of thousands of years of
evolution which have led homo sapiens to be judgmental a lot of the
time.

Ignoring human nature is not normally a successful strategy for living
in a society. If you want to go and live alone on an otherwise
uninhabited island and not communicate with anyone else, then you can
happily say whatever you like without there being consequences.
Otherwise, exercising your right to free speech may elicit a reaction.
That you may not like the reaction is because you have misjudged how
your audience is likely to react, or you have correctly judged the
response and decided to go ahead anyway, in which case the adverse
reaction is that which you have brought upon your own head.

You can argue the toss over whether actions taken in a specific case
are reasonable. Human nature being what it is, mistakes can and will
be made by those reacting to a particular instance of an exercise of
free speech. But to expect that there should on no account be any
reaction by any affected party - and that is party affected in the
real world, not excluding party or parties whom you in your wisdom do
not think should be affected in an ideal world - is, I would put to
you, completely absurd.

Cheers,

Mike

On 07/06/2021 04:13, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:51:49 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <rama@samura.ai>
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:03:33 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My point exactly. Everyone has a right to his views, including criticism of racism, which anyone with a smidgen of decency should. I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the airing of views just because someone else gets offended and (b) sanctions such as penalties, suspensions and dismissals for holding a view, howsoever loathsome it may be.
>>> If an employer hires someone who subsequently publicly expresses those
>>> loathsome views, the employer may suffer reputational damage, which
>>> can end up causing the business considerable financial harm.
>>
>>
>> The employer shouldn't. Each person is an individual and doesn't represent the company itself. Furthermore, when you avail an organisation's services or buy their products, you do so for what they offer, not because of the individual views of its employees. As a ready example, the bloke who was in a way the face of Subway got arrested a decade or so ago because some child porn was found on his laptop. Did anyone stop eating at Subway because of that? Not that I've heard of. And if they did, I'd regard it as absurd.
>
> You're entitled to think society is absurd.
>
> Businesses who behave as though they think society is absurd, though,
> tend to stop being businesses after a certain length of time.
>
> Law firms, for instance, which discover that a partner has acquired an
> unpleasant public reputation know that a number of potential clients
> will seek the services of other firms while that partner taints their
> reputation. When a business seeks to attract customers because it has
> great people working for it, it isn't a great selling point if it is
> public knowledge that one of the partners is a loathsome toad. You may
> consider it absurd that people seeking professional advice prefer to
> seek it from people they believe to be sane and reasonable rather than
> subscribers to the kind of delusional beliefs that the imbecile so
> regularly professes, but I can say that it would certainly affect
> decisions that I personally might make in that regard.
>
> If fellow employees discover that their colleague is a loathsome toad
> and start treating him as though he is a loathsome toad, that may not
> be very nice of them, but it does rather pose a problem for the
> business. Should the loathsome toad be in a position of responsibility
> involving performance assessment or work assignment, it is quite
> likely that those who are the objects of his derision or prejudice are
> liable to start complaining about the loathsome toad and appealing
> against the loathsome toad's decisions. Even in the unlikely event
> that the loathsome toad's decisions have been completely unaffected by
> his loathsome personality, it will absorb a great deal of management
> time to investigate each complaint and go through the necessary
> procedures. If on the other hand it turns out that the loathsome
> toad's prejudices have affectd his decision-making, there will be
> legal costs and compensation to be paid, as well as the rescinding of
> previous actions.
>
> And those to whom he reports will probably weigh what they now know
> about the loathsome toad when they consider what the loathsome toad
> tells them. If the toad's job is to diagnose faults in hardware, they
> may well consider what he says to be useful, but should it involve
> personnel decisions, they might start considering it less reliable.
> Having an employee on whose information they do not feel they can rely
> is not a good way to run a company.
>
> Continuing to employ loathsome toads is bad for business. You may
> consider that absurd, but there we are.
>
> You appear to believe that the right to speak freely means that there
> should be no consequences for doing so. Why on earth should saying
> things be the only actions a human being can take without there being
> consequences? Everything else we do is usually considered to be our
> responsibility, and we are often held accountable for what we have
> done. Sometimes by state actors such as the police and judiciary but
> much more often by the people with whom we interact. We stop liking
> them, trusting them, wanting to be in their company or be married to
> them because of what they do, and in a huge number of those cases it
> is because of something they said. And nowadays, it can easily be
> because of old posts they made on FB or Twitter.
>
> Human nature may well be absurd. Maybe people should not be
> judgmental, but you're battling against tens of thousands of years of
> evolution which have led homo sapiens to be judgmental a lot of the
> time.
>
> Ignoring human nature is not normally a successful strategy for living
> in a society. If you want to go and live alone on an otherwise
> uninhabited island and not communicate with anyone else, then you can
> happily say whatever you like without there being consequences.
> Otherwise, exercising your right to free speech may elicit a reaction.
> That you may not like the reaction is because you have misjudged how
> your audience is likely to react, or you have correctly judged the
> response and decided to go ahead anyway, in which case the adverse
> reaction is that which you have brought upon your own head.
>
> You can argue the toss over whether actions taken in a specific case
> are reasonable. Human nature being what it is, mistakes can and will
> be made by those reacting to a particular instance of an exercise of
> free speech. But to expect that there should on no account be any
> reaction by any affected party - and that is party affected in the
> real world, not excluding party or parties whom you in your wisdom do
> not think should be affected in an ideal world - is, I would put to
> you, completely absurd.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
All of which may well be true, but I thank God that the stupid things I
said and did as a teenager haven't come back to bite me on the bum.
Robinson bowled well and batted well. His barely articulate ramblings as
an 18 year old shouldn't detract from that.
Steve Hague

In article <pisjbgdteeaq09qctk3n3en3b5jfeqim1m@4ax.com>, Mike Holmans
<spam@jackalope.uk> writes
>On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 22:33:03 -0700 (PDT), chandelle <rama@samura.ai>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 3:51:15 PM UTC+4, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course you have the right to be a shit, but it doesn't come with an
>>> attendant right to be immune from other people telling you that you're
>>> a shit.
>>
>>
>>My point exactly. Everyone has a right to his views, including
>>criticism of racism, which anyone with a smidgen of decency should.
>>I'm, however, categorically against (a) laws that aim to gag the
>>airing of views just because someone else gets offended and (b)
>>sanctions such as penalties, suspensions and dismissals for holding a
>>view, howsoever loathsome it may be.
>
>If an employer hires someone who subsequently publicly expresses those
>loathsome views, the employer may suffer reputational damage, which
>can end up causing the business considerable financial harm. It can
>lead to the business being disrupted by protests and boycotts,
>particularly if they fail to at least discipline the employee. Not to
>mention the disruption to the company's operations caused by other
>employees reacting to what has been revealed about their colleague.
>
>The company's shareholders are unlikely to be pleased if the company's
>profits decline and the business loses customers because the company
>is seen to be a haven for loathsome people.
>
>Companies have a fiduciary duty to protect the value of the
>investments which have been made in the business and would open
>themselves to legal action by their shareholders were they not to take
>steps to protect their business.
>
>Are you categorically against companies protecting themselves against
>loss of business and/or legal action?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike
The views of the employee and the expression of those views are only
relevant in the context of their employment.

Of course we have the bullies like Stonewall who extort money form
business by threat but they are now being called out.
--
Bert