Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:05 am  

Fat Boy wrote:

Our new HR manager insisted that everyone sat through a half day diversity training recently. There was no cake - is there any jobs going at your place?

Come and work at our place mate, we don't have HR! The directors openly say if we need HR they arnt doing their jobs. We have cake and beer!

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:11 am  

G1 wrote:

Does it? What is your authority for that statement?

The RFL are investigating a charge of homophobia. Not foul and abusive language. As for the police, ask them.

I have done. He told me to stop being a fat, bald fag; get off Southstander and do some real work. It was me because, thank the lord above, I work in a place inhabited by intellectual grown ups who don't need an HR department, or any other department whose sole function is to tell us how to behave and think.

Interestingly, I do refer to my female colleagues as "my bitches" or "beeyatches". I'm not being offensive and they're not offended. Because it's all about context.

As you've quoted "it's the law" without providing any real authority I trust you understand that when it comes to language in the workplace intention is relevant towards the victim's feelings. Context is everything: Does the comment come out of the blue? Was it made during a heated argument? Did someone just overstep the line with a tasteless joke? All of the above could be relevant, it's not quite as black and white as you make it out to be.

intention may be relevant to punishment of the offender. However, if the word faggot was used, a complaint was made, and your lack of a HR department meant no investigation was made, no diversity training was carried out and no attempt was made to change that. Then said business has failed in its duty to provide a safe work environment free from discrimination. Something all of us have a legal right to, whether lawyers, office workers, cleaners or RL players.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:16 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

are high shots or shoulder charges a part of your workday? If they arent, thats probably why you wouldnt get a ban for them and would likely be looking at an assault charge. Homophobic slurs are no more part of an RL match than they are an office job.

Insults are part and parcel when on the pitch. What if. Hardaker had called a rival player's mother a "sl*t". Would you or anybody on here be remotely bothered by this? Yet probably the player it was aimed at would find that more offensive than being called a faggot himself. Context dear boy, context.

SmokeyTA wrote:

How about this for some questions we could ask, University of Cambridge did a survey for Stonewalls schools report 2 years ago. In that report 2/3rds of Gay People said they dont like team sports, often because of homophobic bullying on the pitch and in the changing rooms. In light of this, do you think it to be acceptable for a high profile player in a relatively high profile game to be filmed saying the words "fusking faggot"? Do you think that if said player were not to be punished this would send out a positive message to homosexuals about this game? Do you think it would make them feel welcomed or excluded?

Ok 2/3rd of people don't like team sports. OFTEN because of homophobic bullying, often.....how much does this word OFTEN cover? That's a pretty loose conclusion. Not really a number of percentage.

How many gay people did they ask? 2/3rds of thousands is quite a lot. 2/3rds when they asked 10 people isn't really.

When gay people play team sport do you honestly believe they don't throw insults around too?

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:19 am  

Slightly off topic but my experience of HR is that they take common sense and replace it with BS legislation, which serves to hinder a business. As I said the directors at our gaff believe in the culture we have and recruiting people with the right stuff, as people and workers.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:20 am  

Eastbourne Warrior wrote:

No, it's not quite the same. One was a kid sticking 2 fingers up at the people who had been verbally abusing him and also booooood him whilst playing for his country. Silly thing to do and he rightly got fined.

The other is about an investigation that is taking place. IF found to be guilty is on a different level and will be very harshly dealt with. There is no doubt he said something which on the face of it appeared to be a homophobic term. That is for the people conducting the investigation to decide. IMO from the little evidence I have seen it is impossible to judge exactly what was said and who it was aimed at. The investigation will have access to several camera angles and expert lip readers to help them come to a conclusion.

For those who are blaze about the seriousness of the alleged incident and want to talk technicalities it could come under the category of 'Hate Crime' depending on what evidence is submitted and the statements of those involved. It could also be a storm in a tea cup. As RG said let the powers that be decide.

Well then you should be quoting Rogues Gallery, not me. I didn't compare the two. But he was right to bring it up, try reading the thread properly instead of coming in all guns blazing just because you thought someone had dared have a go at your idol.

Nice way to massively play one down and defend it while playing the other up though.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:23 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Insults are part and parcel when on the pitch. What if. Hardaker had called a rival player's mother a "sl*t". Would you or anybody on here be remotely bothered by this? Yet probably the player it was aimed at would find that more offensive than being called a faggot himself. Context dear boy, context.

homophobia, like racism cannot be part and parcel of our game. The whataboutery is irrelevant. You dont have the right not to be offended. You do have the right to an environment free from homophobia, racism and discrimination.

Ok 2/3rd of people don't like team sports. OFTEN because of homophobic bullying, often.....how much does this word OFTEN cover? That's a pretty loose conclusion. Not really a number of percentage.

How many gay people did they ask? 2/3rds of thousands is quite a lot. 2/3rds when they asked 10 people isn't really.

When gay people play team sport do you honestly believe they don't throw insults around too?

So your answer to those questions would be, i dont believe the University of Cambridges evidence and will dismiss those concerns, even though that statement is taken verbatim from a press release put out by this very club.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:25 am  

sgtwilko wrote:

Slightly off topic but my experience of HR is that they take common sense and replace it with BS legislation, which serves to hinder a business. As I said the directors at our gaff believe in the culture we have and recruiting people with the right stuff, as people and workers.

HR do seem meddling and a lot of fannying about, whilst things are fine then they are just an annoyance. But if you ever need them, you will be glad they are there. I would also hazard a guess that when your directors say they dont have a HR team, they do, its simply outsourced.

And as i say, they often have cake, or at the very least some sweets

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:25 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

homophobia, like racism cannot be part and parcel of our game. The whataboutery is irrelevant. You dont have the right not to be offended. You do have the right to an environment free from homophobia, racism and discrimination.

So your answer to those questions would be, i dont believe the University of Cambridges evidence and will dismiss those concerns, even though that statement is taken verbatim from a press release put out by this very club.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:34 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Insults are part and parcel when on the pitch. What if. Hardaker had called a rival player's mother a "sl*t". Would you or anybody on here be remotely bothered by this? Yet probably the player it was aimed at would find that more offensive than being called a faggot himself. Context dear boy, context.

Ok 2/3rd of people don't like team sports. OFTEN because of homophobic bullying, often.....how much does this word OFTEN cover? That's a pretty loose conclusion. Not really a number of percentage.

How many gay people did they ask? 2/3rds of thousands is quite a lot. 2/3rds when they asked 10 people isn't really.

When gay people play team sport do you honestly believe they don't throw insults around too?

1600 children were asked in the stonewalls 2012 school report. So not a small number.

Re: Zak in trouble? : Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:42 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

homophobia, like racism cannot be part and parcel of our game. The whataboutery is irrelevant. You dont have the right not to be offended. You do have the right to an environment free from homophobia, racism and discrimination.

I "don't have the right not to be offended". Dear boy, I have the right to feel however I want about the situation. Or do we have to follow your opinion? Doesn't the same freedom you're fighting for mean I'm free to think however I want.

Again would you be offended/bothered if Hardaker called a player's mum a "sl*t"? That you haven't replied to that part clearly shows that you wouldn't be, yet he's offended someone with his words. Just ones that don't bother you as much, hypocrisy much.

SmokeyTA wrote:

So your answer to those questions would be, i dont believe the University of Cambridges evidence and will dismiss those concerns, even though that statement is taken verbatim from a press release put out by this very club.

No but nice try, I didn't say I don't believe them. I inquired into the figures. "2/3rds" and "often" are fairly loose.