Share this content
74

Employees - or slaves ?

Employees - or slaves ?

Didn't find your answer?

In another thread the firing of someone for what was said in a "private" conversation was discussed.

In the "Partner sues PwC for race discrimination" article one sentence grabbed my attention,  where it says -  "In 2004 he was given a negative appraisal for dating a colleague (now his wife) without revealing the nature of the relationship to his bosses".

I am aware of many larger firms, (Tescos being one example), where staff who have had time off ill are required to submit to an "interview" (described to me by a Tescos employee as an interogation) by their personnel staff upon their return to work.

Now two team leaders in the benefits section of Carlisle City Council has ordered employees to clock out if having a non-work related conversation with fellow workers.

If an employee 'phones in sick, car giant Toyota despatch a member of their staff to visit the employees home to check that they are there and they are ill. 

Accountants are expected to file money laundering reports if they "suspect" clients, but at what point is a client's financial dealings simply none of the accountants business. They may be secret gamblers, or lottery winners who simply dont want anyone to know they've won, but accountants are threatened with sanctions if they do not report unexplained monies, and are expected to do this work without payment.

CCTV, whilst useful on town centre streets, is now being introduced into some workplaces to spy on employees, and only last week it was reported that a schopl was planning to put CCTV in every classroom and even in the schools toilets & changing rooms (perfect for any perverts on the staff). 

Is it really any business of an employer if his employees are courting?   Is it any business of an employer what employees say in private.  Does an employer really have the moral right to "check up" on employees, or to interrogate them when they've had a couple of days off ill? 

Are they employees - or are they becoming slaves ?  

Replies (74)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Guest1
29th Jan 2011 06:46

It's funny you should mention this

a couple of years ago, my son, who delivers post, went into hospital for a "key-hole" knee procedure. The employer had been advised, quite correctly, in advance and, immediately following the procedure, I called in at his work with the appropriate note, from the consultant. The note explained that my son would be unable to work for 14 days and all was quite clear.

After around 10 days his manager phoned to question when he would be returning to work and, once he did, he also had a ("return to work") interview. Although I was furious, given the sincerity of the situation, the employer simply provided the Data Protection Act as a means for not discussing my views.

I imagine, in some firms, the threat of the loss of employment, weighs heavily on some employees and, one just hopes that the old adage "what goes around comes around" holds true.

I'm sorry to say that, what was once, a "Great" nation, in my view, has a plethora of shortcomings.

Thanks (0)
By Steve Holloway
29th Jan 2011 11:04

Return to work interviews ...

are recognised best practice by both ACAS and the IPD. The have the dual purpose of weeding out sickie takers and giving the employer notice of any adjustments that might be needed following a period of sickness.

Compared with when I was in HR the balance has swung so far towards protecting the employee as to defy belief. Over the last 5 or 6 years my wife has worked within HR in a number of large organisations both public and private and the blatant p*** taking that occurs with sickness & pointless greivances just would not have been tolerated. The main problem is that most employers simply can't afford to go to court to prove their case ... my wife was quoted £10k by a solicitor this week just to draw up papers and a 3 day hearing. The case was a straightforward redundancy situation.

I have come to the conclusion that there is no longer any respect for the employer or indeed gratitude that you have been given a job.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
29th Jan 2011 11:15

Steve, I can understand "back to work" inteviews for people returning from serious illness, operations and the like - but not after one day off with a minor ailment which is what some large firms do. 

And I certainly dont see what business it is of the employer if two collegues begin dating.  Your comment about employees not being grateful to their employers could equally apply the other way round.  If you dont show employees that they are valued, and treat them as individuals, then how cajn you expect any respect in return.

  

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Richard Willis
29th Jan 2011 12:09

Some people just don't 'get' sick leave.

In 1994 I was, having already spent 8 weeks flat on my back, subjected to major spinal surgery.  After four weeks recuperation I was desperate to get back to work; Thomas the Tank Engine had long since ceased to allay the boredom!  When I suggested this to my GP he said that he doubted that I would cope with full time work so soon.

I mentioned that I had sufficient holiday left that I could work half days up to Christmas (then mid November) so he agreed this as a compromise.

Everything went well, or so I thought; however when my FD and I were discussing salary review in the new year he said 'yes but you are the man who, having already had 12 weeks off sick insisted on taking the balance of his holiday.'!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Scotchguard
29th Jan 2011 19:21

BTW Interviews

I am a great fan of short back to work interviews.

As a caring employer I see it as an important discussion to ensure that I am aware of any issues (however serious) that I need to consider to support my team. I can't see any methodology arising whereby you can define what is a 'serious illness' and choosing not to hold one (as implied by cymraeg_draig)  without actually speaking to your employee so would much rather adopt a standard (best practice) approach with any returning team member regardless of duration. Perhaps I have misread the comment and a less formal but similar discussion is held by cymraeg_draig ?

I always adopt a sensible approach and it is never intended to be an 'interrogation' process. Fenerally two questions suffice;

"How are you?"

"Is everything ok with your workplace conditions or do you need any support at this point"

Works for me, but we are all different.

Incidentally, if off ill, my team normally voluntarily come to me to conduct the interview, so I guess it must be interpretated as a positive discussion from their perspective also.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
29th Jan 2011 22:59

Scotchguard

I am a great fan of short back to work interviews.

tooltip();

 

Posted by Scotchguard on Sat, 29/01/2011 - 19:21

 

Firstly I think it's necessary to differentiate between obvious serious illness (long time off, operations etc etc) and short time (a few days) minor illness - flu, coughs, colds etc.

Surely the obvious indicators are what the employee said was wrong when they 'phoned to say they wouldnt be in, and, what it says on the doctor's certificate if the illness was not short-term.

An informal word over a cup of coffee when you bump into them is one thing, but I feel that calling them into a personell department to be formally interviewed whilst notes are taken and placed on file (as happens in some larger organisations) is counter productive as it breeds a feeling of mistrust, and can be intimidatory.  Obviously if someone has had a serious illness, operation, etc then a longer chat to see that they are now recovered is something any half decent employer would do as a matter of common decency.

I know of workers at a large supermarket who are so intmidated that they drag themselves into work when ill rather than have these notes put on their file. The result of this of course is that the next time you or your staff are ill with flu, you probably caught it from some check-out girl who shouldnt have been at work spreading her germs but was intimidated into being there by the companies overbearing attitude.

I wonder how many vulnerable people have been made ill or possibly even died because of infections spread as a result of these companies policies?

Helping staff is something any decent employer should do, whether that "help" and support is as a result of illness, or money problems or any thing else is irrelevent.  What decent employers shouldnt do is interfere in employees private lives or dictate to them what they do with their lives outside of work.  

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Scotchguard
30th Jan 2011 10:44

Thanks for clarifying your point CD

I don't think we disagree on this point at all. I can't align with a creation of fear or adopting an intimidating approach either.

A good old fashioned common sense approach, without ignoring warning signs of serious problems emerging will always be best practice.

All the best.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
30th Jan 2011 11:08

.

 

A good old fashioned common sense approach, without ignoring warning signs of serious problems emerging will always be best practice.

 

Posted by Scotchguard on Sun, 30/01/2011 - 10:44

 

 

Unfortunately "good old fashioned common sense" is a rare commodity in many firms it seems. My approach may seem extremly casual to some, but, it has always worked for me.

 

What I simply cannot get my head round is just what gives firms like PcW the idea that they have a "right" to know if two of their staff become romantically involved.  What next - family planning scheduling for employees (ensure you give birth during your annual leave)?

I'm surprised that an allegedly leading accountancy practice so blatantly ignores Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which states that  "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life ....".  Now although this Article specifically refers to "public authorities" I am amazed that the spirit of this article is so blatantly ignored by a leading firm.

Certainly the statement that -  "In 2004 he was given a negative appraisal for dating a colleague (now his wife) without revealing the nature of the relationship to his bosses" implies that not only was his right ignored, but he was in fact "punished" for simply pursuing his own private life.;

This kind of "big brother" attitude by companies is, in my view, unacceptable and reflects very badly on PcW. Indeed, where I am aware of such policies being pursued by a company I try to ensure that unless unavoidable I do not trade with them.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Trevor Scott
30th Jan 2011 14:52

Where...

...specific roles within systems demand controls then employers need to know that say the cashier is dating the accountant, or that one person in management is dating another person under their supervision/deal with so that they can take measures to ensure that say no favouritism is either shown, or even just may possibly be seen to be shown.

I've seen a number of quality staff disappear in firms because they think personal relationships/nepotism will deny them a chance to develope their career.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
30th Jan 2011 15:35

I dont see that as an "excuse" for employers meddling in persona

If the security of a system can be breached by just two people collaborating, then it's a pretty pathetic system.

Thanks (0)
By Steve Holloway
31st Jan 2011 09:02

I ended up marrying 3 people I worked with .....

perhaps I would have benefitted from more management control!!! Clearly it is why Mrs H insists that I work by myself with only canine company!!

 

CD ... what about where the manager and a subordinate have a relationship ... that can unsettle the rest of the team and I think it in both their interests that the next manager up is made aware otherwise they are risking accusations of bias.

Thanks (0)
Della Hudson FCA
By Della Hudson
02nd Feb 2011 10:51

50%

Apparently 50% of people marry someone they meet through work. (Not sure of the source of the statistic)

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AlanHaley
02nd Feb 2011 10:52

Its can be like big brother

Where my wife works, they have a similar return to work "interview", which as other posters have commented is deemed "best practice". However what is insidious is that they accumulate the days off over time and inform the employee that they are reaching the "limit" of time off. My wife was off work a year ago with a suspected TIA ( a form of mild stroke) and was signed off for approximately 3 months. She was monitored on returning to work under the Occupational health dept and is still being monitored. This is a good thing. Recently, however, she had to take one day off due to a heavy cold. When returning to work, the interview took place about 2 weeks later where she was told about the limit. She is now fearful of taking any time off for even the most minor of ailments. This is where the "fear" culture is generated. If an employee is fit to work then previous illnesses and absences, if genuine, should be ignored.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
02nd Feb 2011 11:20

.
I ended up marrying 3 people I worked with ..... 

Posted by Steve Holloway on Mon, 31/01/2011 - 09:02

 

All at the same time ?   :) 

Thanks (0)
By Steve Holloway
02nd Feb 2011 11:31

Clearly that's where I went wrong ....

the two divorces would have been cheaper if I could have got a buy one get one free deal!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Spudsy
02nd Feb 2011 11:34

Please sir can I go too the loo

I agree with everything cymraeg_draig said. Common sense seems to of been lost along the way, I couldn't work for an employer who tracked my movement and thought I was 'robbing them' of time and that thought I should be grateful everyday of my work life that they 'gave' me a job. What an arrogant attitute almost as bad as 'I deserve a job'. I read an article about Norwegian employers timing and filming their staff going to the toilet and this appeared in the Daily Mail:

'A boss in Norway has ordered all female staff to wear red bracelets during their periods – to explain why they are using the toilet more often.

The astonishing demand was revealed in report by a workers’ union into ‘tyrannical’ toilet rules in Norwegian companies.'

I worked for an employer who got it into his head that all his staff were spending too much time going to the toilet so he decided to follow each person and wait out side the toilet timing them and then ask them what they had been doing and why did it take so long. After a few angry exchanges (mostly with the women in the office who called him a pervert) we came up with a plan of all going to the toilet at the same time in different parts of the building we ran him ragged for two days before he gave up.

-- www.bagofreceipts.co.uk www.image-uk.com

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Karen Watson
02nd Feb 2011 11:45

Hazard Warning

And if the senior/junior relationship later goes horribly wrong, the company needs to be able to field accusations of Senior having originally misused his/her position to obtain Junior’s favours, or Junior having been unfairly dismissed/disadvantaged afterwards.

Nor might professional customers be reassured about the existence of “Chinese Walls” if the staff on either side are Pyramus and Thisbe :-)  Having that said, no company has the right to know if a personal partner is neither staff nor client and does not present any other commercial or legal or data protection risk. But such things do tend to filter out regardless anyway in any office where people have worked together for more than five minutes... 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Roland195
02nd Feb 2011 12:04

HR Departments

Even if in theory return to work interviews sound like a good idea, in practice they always result in an aggrieved employee feeling victimised.

I have a low opinion of HR departments in general - they are rarely any practical help to the employee or employer and are more often than not a hindrance to the effective management of the business.

It does not sem to help matters that they also seem to be pretty exclusively staffed by young girls. One thing I have learned is that while older men dislike being told off/interrogated by young girls, older women truly despise it. 

Thanks (0)
By Steve Holloway
02nd Feb 2011 14:28

HR

Having run a large HR department all I can say is .. try it before ye judge. That 5 years opened my eyes to every human failing and foible imaginable. HR professionals (probably like the police) develop the utmost cynacism for most things they are told and believe me there is no excuse that has not been used or lie that has not been told. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
02nd Feb 2011 15:52

@ Karen

so Babylon was in China ? ;-)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Karen Watson
02nd Feb 2011 16:03

carnmores

That's what happens when you met your mixaphors :-)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Paul.Chillman
02nd Feb 2011 16:36

HR Department

The term "Human Resources" says it all really. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By weaversmiths
02nd Feb 2011 17:13

50-50

Whilst I can see the point from the employee's point of view - trailing to the toilet etc.  I had a client - a bakery with 4 small outlying shops.  The manageress in the smallest shop, run by just 2 staff,  went into hospital for an operation on her wrist.  My client knew she was going to have this operation when he took her on but she said it was minor and would only be away for 2 weeks at most.  However, she was away for many months.  He went to fill up with fuel in a town 5 miles away and there she was working in the service station.  We sought advice from DSS and ACAS and they said that there was nothing wrong with this and he should keep paying her SSP.  He eventually gave her a settlement to leave and then found she had already got a further job in the bakery shop he had just sold about a month earlier.  Needless to say she did the same thing to her new employer and she obtained a further settlement. 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By lawmaniz
02nd Feb 2011 18:09

Employers' liabilities.

The reason why some employers conduct interviews with their staff members who have been absent from work because of sickness is to make sure that they comply with any statutory provisions of the Equality Act 2010. That is to say, has any particular employee suffered a disability and might require a reasonable adjustment to be made to her or his working environment? (The provisions used to be in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 until it was repealed upon the coming into force of the Equality ACt 2010).

Likewise, the reason that some employers require employees to tell them if they are sexually involved with a colleague (of opposite or same gender) is that they need to avoid claims against them for sexual discrimination or harassment (or by either of the employees themselves making such claims against each other). 

An employer can insist on certain reasonable things such as the way employees dress (by having a dress code). Employees need to be aware that they have a fiduciary duty (that's particularly important for senior employees such as directors to observe and they can be sued for a breach) towards their employers and, for other employees, a duty of fidelity.

The statutory provisions in the Equality Act 2010 - that now contains all the anti-discrimination strands - require both employers and employees to be careful about what they say least it offends or harrasses others as well as being careful (or thoughtful) about how they act towards others. This is relevant when interacting with someone of the opposite gender, a person with a disability, or with regard to a person's age, or a person's sexuality, or their ethnic origin (e.g. Welsh), or if a person's is pregnant, on maternity leave. The moral is: don't act until you've thought first; don't speak until you've done the same. Basically, it's a matter of retraining your brain to eradicate the prejudiced and bigotted thoughts you've grown up with. I mean, I don't like ginger-haired people but would I say that...? Obviously not!     

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
02nd Feb 2011 18:29

The product of idiotic loony left drivel

The statutory provisions in the Equality Act 2010 - that now contains all the anti-discrimination strands - require both employers and employees to be careful about what they say least it offends or harrasses others as well as being careful (or thoughtful) about how they act towards others. This is relevant when interacting with someone of the opposite gender, a person with a disability, or with regard to a person's age, or a person's sexuality, or their ethnic origin (e.g. Welsh), or if a person's is pregnant, on maternity leave. The moral is: don't act until you've thought first; don't speak until you've done the same.  Posted by lawmaniz on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 18:09

 

 

Or put more simply - you must at all times be the perfect little politically correct drone & slavishly follow the dictats of pathetic frustrated loony left witches like Harperson and B'Liar's wife or the thought police will come to get you. 

Of course, if you happen to be a white christian hetrosexual male of British birth without a disability anyone can discriminate against you and not only are you unprotected, but its deemed to be your own fault for being "normal" - how dare you not belong to some minority group or other.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
02nd Feb 2011 18:46

CCTV Cameras

Digressing slightly (but responding to the comment about CCTV), I am a supporter of CCTV, but not in the way it is implemented in the UK.

If all CCTV cameras were managed by an independent body, and no-one (especially the police) could get access to the footage without a good reason, the system would be much fairer. No-one would ever have to see these images unless a relevant incident were alleged. This way, and with approriate controls over access, you could even install them in toilets, where a lot of violence occurs.

Who knows, if the police had had no access to CCTV cameras or images, the images of the execution of Jean Charles Menedez by the Metropolitan Police might have been retrieved.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
02nd Feb 2011 18:50

Idea for an AWeb vote

How about a vote on whether readers consider HR departments to be useful or destructive?  I would offer to phrase the question, but would probably be accused (quite correctly) of loading it against HR departments.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Jason Dormer
02nd Feb 2011 19:57

HR Departments are a waste of time and money if you have good management in place, good employees and good communication between the two.

If HR departments are needed then there are shortcomings on one or both sides.

Treat people properly and communicate with them then there is nothing to fear from employment rights as your workplace will police itself against any mickey takers - it will be against the culture of the firm.

I used to work for a large law firm in a previous life, HR got involved in EVERYTHING, and while they were very good at what they did, it was only becaue the lawyers had such poor staff skills, and that inappropriate people where hired in the first place, that they were needed.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
02nd Feb 2011 20:59

A need for HR?

I think if you do not have good communication with staff, you are leaving yourself wide open to abuse by HR. Give them control and they will abuse it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
02nd Feb 2011 23:50

HR

"Human Resources" - another name for politically correct spoilsports to infiltrate a business and undo years of good management in 5 minutes by imposing silly pointless "equality" rules and "health & safety" drivel. They are about as useful as a condom machine in the Vatican.

If I am paying someone's salary then I will decide what hours they work, what holiday they take, how well they do their job, and what perks they get - not some acne covered teenager with a meaningless degree in nothing important or useful.

I pay scant regard for "elf & safety", I smoke in my office and as I own it no pompous politician is going to dictate to me what I can and cant do in MY property.  I have never in my life given an employee a contract of employment - my handshake and my word is binding. And I've never been threatened with a tribunal or had disatified staff. 

What possible purpose so call "human resources" staff fulfill is beyond me, it seems that they simply make it up as they go along and spend their lives pushing round meaningless bits of paper whilst actually achieving nothing.

 

 

Thanks (0)
By Steve Holloway
03rd Feb 2011 09:13

Utter rubbish ...

and written by people with no knowledge of what an HR department does! My remit in no particular order was:

Compensation and benefits - structuring pay scales, benefits analysis, equal pay act, market benchmarking, payroll administration, vehicle fleet management, P11D's, share schemes, canteens

Recruitment & resourcing - training managers to interview, compiling recruitment supplier lists, linking with training strategy, redeployment, outsourcing, redundancy.

Administration - contracts, starters, leavers, pay increases, handbooks, policies, procedures

Discipline and grievance - dealing with every shade of ----- imaginable, tribunals attendance

If you are an employee with a gripe all you see is someone who might not agree with you. Because clearly you are never wrong the HR dept. are the idiots. If you work in HR you see a hundred people who are never wrong!!

PS most HR people hate the term Human Resources more than employees. Its a nasty Americanism.

 

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
03rd Feb 2011 13:06

Steve

"Its a nasty Americanism."

So is most of America.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
03rd Feb 2011 23:54

"Utter rubbish"

 Good thing swearing is not allowed on this forum; otherwise someone could write something offensive.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
03rd Feb 2011 23:56

"I smoke in my office and as I own it no pompous politician is g

 I'm the same. I murder people in my office because I own it, and no pompous politician is going to dictate to me what I can and can't do in MY property

Thanks (0)
By Steve Holloway
04th Feb 2011 08:33

Utter rubbish ....

I apologise ... very unprofessional. I meant ill conceived based on misconception or ignorance of reality.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andypartridge
04th Feb 2011 09:43

Slow torture

I inflict slow torture on people in my office because I own it. (Murder is too good for them.)

'Sick leave?' I yell, 'Sick leave? I'll give you something to be sick about.'

And no pompous politician is going to dictate to me what I can and can't do in MY property

-- Kind regards Andy

Thanks (0)
avatar
By craigbell
31st May 2012 13:01

Return to work interviews in the retail environment

I have worked for two big 5 supermarkets over the last 13 years and I have never once heard of a return to work interview being used in a forward looking manner.  All too often at the store level they are used to criticise and punish, not how they were intended to be used. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
04th Feb 2011 11:58

.

It seems one or two people want to make childish comments about those who refuse to bend to politically correct dogma.  

No one is "killing" anyone - no one is forced to enter my office, and I never see clients in my office - thats what meeting rooms are for, so I see no problem. 

Similarly I dont pander to the extremist political correctness that permeates society - such as pompous Mexicans who "demand" that Top Gear be taken off TV for making a comment about Mexicans. I really feel sorry for people who are so insecure that they spend their lives taking "offence" at stereotype jokes. What sad little people they are. 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
04th Feb 2011 12:32

"no one is forced to enter my office, and I never see clients in

In that case Dragon, I entirely support your right to take drugs in your office. I would be an interfering control freak to believe otherwise.

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
04th Feb 2011 13:16

C_D

There are so many things on which I disagree with you to a very strong degree that it shocks me when you say things with which I'm in full agreement! This is not one of those occasions though!

I once had to make a short film as part of a Communication Studies GCSE about bullying and the gist of it was this. The camera follows a guy along a school corridor, passing other kids as he goes along till he passes a red-haired kid to whom he makes a 'ginger' jibe. Then a caption comes up on screen saying "just a harmless joke". Then the camera follows the red-haired kid and every 2nd or 3rd kid that passes him all the way along the corridor makes similar comments. As he becomes visibly more and more upset another caption says "just a harmless joke?". Hardly Spielberg material but I think it made my point pretty well.

It's easy to see stereotype jokes as just jokes, but when on the receiving end it can be ongoing and relentless. You may only say it once, but that person hears it over and over. Defending this kind of 'joke' just shows a lack of empathy towards other people.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
04th Feb 2011 13:51

mwngiol

It's easy to see stereotype jokes as just jokes, but when on the receiving end it can be ongoing and relentless. You may only say it once, but that person hears it over and over. Defending this kind of 'joke' just shows a lack of empathy towards other people.tooltip();

 

Posted by mwngiol on Fri, 04/02/2011 - 13:16

 

ALL comedy with very very few exceptions is at the expense of someone.  Whether it is the Irish, the Welsh, people with ginger hair, people in wheelchairs, women drivers, politicians, or whatever, is irrelevent.

It's NOT what's said - it's the circumstances in which it is said.  Which is why the current Mexican outrage at something said on Top Gear is so pathetic. Indeed it simply proves to me that as well as building rubbish sports cars Mexicans lack a sense of humour too.

Let's take an example.

If I am standing on stage rtelling one-line jokes, and I say - what catches planes and goes bang at 1,000 feet - muslims - THAT is a joke.  If, however, I say the same thing whilst standing in an airport queue and say it to fellow passengers about a muslim standing in the queue then it's NOT a joke.

Unfortunately the politically correct brigade seem incapable of grasping that - as indeed your example illustrates.

 

 

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
04th Feb 2011 13:59

Jokes

Even if you were 100% sure that there were no muslims in the audience then that 'joke' is still unacceptable. It perpetuates negativity and hostility and the view that all muslims are terrorists.

This is another thread in which you and I will never agree so I'll pull out now before it starts getting petty.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andypartridge
04th Feb 2011 14:18

@ C_D

You honestly thought the first part was a joke?

Says it all really. You condemn yourself so much more articulately than I ever could

-- Kind regards Andy

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
04th Feb 2011 15:07

pc

It always amuses me how the pc get "offended" on behalf of others.

I wonder why they dont get offended on behalf of others, only their "pet" subjects ?

It really will be a worthless miserable world when the thought police finally outlaw and freedom of expression and all humour.

As for humour - Andys constant weak attempts to inflame some sort of respoinse are the most amusing things I see on here.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andypartridge
04th Feb 2011 15:33

Freedom

The thing about freedom is that it needs to be used responsibly or it soon comes under threat.

So yes, you do have the freedom to say the things you do, but you are not compelled to vomit what you are thinking. To do so risks not just your freedom. Unlike others you do not have the excuse of youth or lack of education.

 -- Kind regards Andy

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
04th Feb 2011 15:36

'the pc get "offended" on behalf of others'

It could almost be a definition of the word "empathy".

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
04th Feb 2011 16:04

.

No its not "empathy" - it's a politically correct urge to meddle in everyone elses freedom of expression if that expression does not cnform to a particular "approved" view of the world. 

We have established laws which differ very little from one country to another to protect basic rights and freedoms, such as freedom from being nurdered, robbed, raped etc.  What is new and a recent development is the raft of rifdiculous politically correct legislation that seeks to control thoughts and beliefs. Indeed we are becoming increasingly like Iran and other dictatorships. These "laws"have no basis in real justice and are simply the imposition of control freak politicians pandering to the lunatic left fringes of their party. 

I think Andy you need to reassess just who is putting freedom at risk.  Me, who stands up to the dictators who try to control our thought, or you, who seems to accept their pontifications no matter how stupid their ideas are. Acceptance is one step from obediance - and once you obey you become just another plaything of the pc brigade to be wound up and sent off to spout their inane drivel at others.

 

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
04th Feb 2011 16:19

C_D

How is saying that it's wrong to tell 'jokes' that all muslims are terrorists the same as trying to control your thoughts? You can think whatever you like, but it's just as much a right of people to not have to be subjected to offensive comments from people who think it's perfectly ok as it is to not be murdered, robbed etc. The word to bear in mind here, as well as empathy, is tolerance. Tolerance doesn't mean having to like something. It means putting up with things you don't like.

Dictator states forcing beliefs on people is completely different to saying that it's wrong to make unjustified offensive comments. 'Jokes' suggesting that all muslims are terrorists are clearly unjustified and are clearly offensive.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
04th Feb 2011 16:22

Again...

 ...we can slag off Mexicans and make jokes about Muslims, but woe betide us if we are caught swearing because we wouldn't want to offend anybody!

I find it hard to believe anyone could defend the proposition that racism is less offensive than swearing. Mind you, here we are!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
04th Feb 2011 16:29

Steven Holloway

I wouldn't worry about your "utter rubbish" comment Steven; AWeb do not seem to mind, as long as you do not swear. 

Thanks (0)

Pages

Share this content

Related posts