mt
Youth Player
Posts: 355
|
Post by mt on Apr 3, 2013 10:59:35 GMT
Spit Why are you equating sexual abuse to a persons right to political freedom? Who mentioned total freedom (anarchy)? Not me! Society needs boundaries...and in my opinion, DiCanio holding a political viewpoint falls well within any reasonable boundary - the alternative is totalitarianism. If you don't like his politics.... fine - but don't compare them to child abuse. Would you feel safe for your kids if a person applying for work at a school would EXPRESS that it is a good thing to beat up kids? Or that a person who wants to drive a bus EXPRESS that it`s okay to have a couple of pints before driving? Or that people who want to work at a restaurant EXPRESS that it`s perfectly fine to not wash your hands after they been on the toilet? Opinions, and how they are expressed, should also tell you a lot about peoples values, not only their behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Apr 3, 2013 11:15:59 GMT
to demonstrate how eay it is to misjudge, try the following.
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts.. Here are the facts about the three candidates. Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes And drinks 8 to 10 Martinis a day. Candidate B: He was kicked out of office twice, Sleeps until noon, Used opium in college And drinks a quart of whiskey every evening. Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero, He's a vegetarian, Doesn't smoke, Drinks an occasional beer And never committed adultery. Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first ... No peeking, and then scroll down for the response.
Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Candidate B is Winston Churchill. Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Apr 3, 2013 11:18:40 GMT
to demonstrate how eay it is to misjudge, try the following. It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts.. Here are the facts about the three candidates. Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes And drinks 8 to 10 Martinis a day. Candidate B: He was kicked out of office twice, Sleeps until noon, Used opium in college And drinks a quart of whiskey every evening. Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero, He's a vegetarian, Doesn't smoke, Drinks an occasional beer And never committed adultery. Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first ... No peeking, and then scroll down for the response. Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Candidate B is Winston Churchill. Candidate C is Adolph Hitler. Saw through your ruse you cheeky scamp. Winston was a decorated war hero too, so you should probably include that in the name of fairness, if you're paying Adolf that courtesy
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Apr 3, 2013 11:22:17 GMT
ok ramblers, guilty as charged, lying by omission; what is said is true and goes some way to demonstrating how difficult it is to judge people by labels.
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Apr 3, 2013 11:23:01 GMT
ok ramblers, guilty as charged, lying by omission; what is said is true and goes some way to demonstrating how difficult it is to judge people by labels. I do get the point you're making though, very well put in fairness. Oh and Winston was famous for working late in to night/morning. I'm just being a pedant now
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Apr 3, 2013 11:23:15 GMT
Spit Why are you equating sexual abuse to a persons right to political freedom? Who mentioned total freedom (anarchy)? Not me! Society needs boundaries...and in my opinion, DiCanio holding a political viewpoint falls well within any reasonable boundary - the alternative is totalitarianism. If you don't like his politics.... fine - but don't compare them to child abuse. Would you feel safe for your kids if a person applying for work at a school would EXPRESS that it is a good thing to beat up kids? Or that a person who wants to drive a bus EXPRESS that it`s okay to have a couple of pints before driving? Or that people who want to work at a restaurant EXPRESS that it`s perfectly fine to not wash your hands after they been on the toilet? Opinions, and how they are expressed, should also tell you a lot about peoples values, not only their behaviour. mt 1.Beating someone elses kids is against the law 2. Drink driving is against the law 3. Breaking health and hygene rules in a restaraunt is against the law. All of these scenarios would be punished by society via the courts. How does this relate to DiCanio? Are you saying this how you would want him to be dealt with for his political beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2013 11:34:51 GMT
I didn't actually say that Fascism can't exist within a Democracy. I said Fascism can't co-exist with democracy. I should perhaps have said that democracy can't be exercised within a Fascist state, which is what I was trying to say. One of the tenets of Fascism (it seems to me) is that it provides no way for the general population to change a regime by peaceful means - which is why I find it to be such a hateful creed. As I said in my earlier post Chile is unusual in that Pinochet, having seized power then introduced democracy (thus abandoning his fascist principles?) and that is what ended his regime. Very odd! PS - wouldn't my support for gay marriage be a bit of a bar to me being a Daily Mail journalist? Or are they planning to go on a wishy washy liberal offensive? Ok I'll have one more go at this At the moment, there is a big media storm around his appointment (never saw the same when he started at Swindon) and a number of people saying that he shouldn't be allowed; or be made to publicly explain his beliefs and all manner of things. A number of people saying on here they'd not support Stoke if he was in charge of us just because of his political beliefs. Given that we do live in a (supposed) democratic society, those who hold them views that some may not believe in should not be just stamped down, oppressed or anything else. That itself is surely a founding principal of democracy where all such views are 'allowed'. There is currently no law that states it is illegal to hold fascist beliefs, but it hasnt stopped the media circus and its bandwagon creating a fuss. Otherwise, if a person cannot be entitled to hold a certain position purely based upon his political beliefs, then can we claim to live in a Democracy? Or are we ourselves then guilty of intolerance of certain political beliefs. I'm not at all disagreeing with you and trying to say that democracy cant exist within a fascist state (because it doesnt)...my point is that a democratic state must allow those who have fascist beliefs to co-exist and have the exact same rights as any other law abiding citizen. The moment anybody is oppressed solely for holding any belief, then we cannot claim to be democratic. The real battle should not be to hound out these people, or create a big media circus and jump on bandwagon's, it should be about educating people about exactly what fascism is so that people can correctly determine themselves whether it is right or wrong. Otherwise, you just get a bunch of idiots jumping around saying that he's a big nazi racist...when there's no evidence of him being either.
|
|
|
Post by nik80 on Apr 3, 2013 11:38:56 GMT
I didn't actually say that Fascism can't exist within a Democracy. I said Fascism can't co-exist with democracy. I should perhaps have said that democracy can't be exercised within a Fascist state, which is what I was trying to say. One of the tenets of Fascism (it seems to me) is that it provides no way for the general population to change a regime by peaceful means - which is why I find it to be such a hateful creed. As I said in my earlier post Chile is unusual in that Pinochet, having seized power then introduced democracy (thus abandoning his fascist principles?) and that is what ended his regime. Very odd! PS - wouldn't my support for gay marriage be a bit of a bar to me being a Daily Mail journalist? Or are they planning to go on a wishy washy liberal offensive? Ok I'll have one more go at this At the moment, there is a big media storm around his appointment (never saw the same when he started at Swindon) and a number of people saying that he shouldn't be allowed; or be made to publicly explain his beliefs and all manner of things. A number of people saying on here they'd not support Stoke if he was in charge of us just because of his political beliefs. Given that we do live in a (supposed) democratic society, those who hold them views that some may not believe in should not be just stamped down, oppressed or anything else. That itself is surely a founding principal of democracy where all such views are 'allowed'. There is currently no law that states it is illegal to hold fascist beliefs, but it hasnt stopped the media circus and its bandwagon creating a fuss. Otherwise, if a person cannot be entitled to hold a certain position purely based upon his political beliefs, then can we claim to live in a Democracy? Or are we ourselves then guilty of intolerance of certain political beliefs. I'm not at all disagreeing with you and trying to say that democracy cant exist within a fascist state (because it doesnt)...my point is that a democratic state must allow those who have fascist beliefs to co-exist and have the exact same rights as any other law abiding citizen. The moment anybody is oppressed solely for holding any belief, then we cannot claim to be democratic. The real battle should not be to hound out these people, or create a big media circus and jump on bandwagon's, it should be about educating people about exactly what fascism is so that people can correctly determine themselves whether it is right or wrong. Otherwise, you just get a bunch of idiots jumping around saying that he's a big nazi racist...when there's no evidence of him being either. Beautifully put
|
|
mt
Youth Player
Posts: 355
|
Post by mt on Apr 3, 2013 11:41:34 GMT
Would you feel safe for your kids if a person applying for work at a school would EXPRESS that it is a good thing to beat up kids? Or that a person who wants to drive a bus EXPRESS that it`s okay to have a couple of pints before driving? Or that people who want to work at a restaurant EXPRESS that it`s perfectly fine to not wash your hands after they been on the toilet? Opinions, and how they are expressed, should also tell you a lot about peoples values, not only their behaviour. mt 1.Beating someone elses kids is against the law 2. Drink driving is against the law 3. Breaking health and hygene rules in a restaraunt is against the law. All of these scenarios would be punished by society via the courts. How does this relate to DiCanio? Are you saying this how you would want him to be dealt with for his political beliefs? It`s not forbidden to express such wiews as above, it`s forbidden to take action and accomplish this kind of wiews in to reality. My point was that as an employer I would choose somebody else to work for me if they expressed such wiews as above. The same goes for Di Canio, really. I wouldn`t employ a person with the spotlights on him seven days a week and with the possibility to have influence on a young peoples mind, if he expressed the same things Di Canio have done over the years. I think it would be bad for buisness( or the club ) with all that negative attention wich would follow such kind of an employment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2013 11:45:02 GMT
Lakeland In a word... Yes! In the same way that christian guesthouse owners are not allowed to discriminate against gay couples even though they disapprove of their way of life and are genuinely offended by them sleeping together under their roof. Equality for all? Or just for those that you agree with? I was under the impression that our law forbade discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, colour, gender (in most cases) or sexual orientation. Fascism is a political belief not a creed. I could be wrong of course...... in employment law you can't discriminate but there are instances where legally you can deny someone the opportunity of employment if their circumstances, whether they be race (i.e. unable to speak English fluently), religion (Muslims cannot become Christian Priests..which many forget IS a job)or disability even (someone with dwarfism who cannot reach high shelves in a warehouse for instance) and these are all perfectly legal justifications to deny someone a particular and specific job. both sexuality and political orientations however are considered "Sensitive personal data" and legally CANNOT be taken into account when someone applies for a job so whether people agree with it or not, di Canio would be able to sue ANY football club who refused to employ him simply because of his political beliefs...and considering we seemed to have moved quite significantly from the OP (with people still seemingly completely refusing to acknowledge the major differences between Fascism, Italian Fascism, Nazism, Hitler and Racism) then that's basically end of thread right there!
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Apr 3, 2013 11:46:02 GMT
democratic and tolerant are not the same thing. The esence of a democracy is that the people can vote the leaders out and replace them. Majority rule, which is what democracy is, has often lead to perecution of minoriies. There is no perfect system, ultimately all systems are dependant upon human nature, which can be corrupted. Sad but true.
|
|
|
Post by countofmontecristo on Apr 3, 2013 11:48:07 GMT
I didn't actually say that Fascism can't exist within a Democracy. I said Fascism can't co-exist with democracy. I should perhaps have said that democracy can't be exercised within a Fascist state, which is what I was trying to say. One of the tenets of Fascism (it seems to me) is that it provides no way for the general population to change a regime by peaceful means - which is why I find it to be such a hateful creed. As I said in my earlier post Chile is unusual in that Pinochet, having seized power then introduced democracy (thus abandoning his fascist principles?) and that is what ended his regime. Very odd! PS - wouldn't my support for gay marriage be a bit of a bar to me being a Daily Mail journalist? Or are they planning to go on a wishy washy liberal offensive? Ok I'll have one more go at this At the moment, there is a big media storm around his appointment (never saw the same when he started at Swindon) and a number of people saying that he shouldn't be allowed; or be made to publicly explain his beliefs and all manner of things. A number of people saying on here they'd not support Stoke if he was in charge of us just because of his political beliefs. Given that we do live in a (supposed) democratic society, those who hold them views that some may not believe in should not be just stamped down, oppressed or anything else. That itself is surely a founding principal of democracy where all such views are 'allowed'. There is currently no law that states it is illegal to hold fascist beliefs, but it hasnt stopped the media circus and its bandwagon creating a fuss. Otherwise, if a person cannot be entitled to hold a certain position purely based upon his political beliefs, then can we claim to live in a Democracy? Or are we ourselves then guilty of intolerance of certain political beliefs. I'm not at all disagreeing with you and trying to say that democracy cant exist within a fascist state (because it doesnt)...my point is that a democratic state must allow those who have fascist beliefs to co-exist and have the exact same rights as any other law abiding citizen. The moment anybody is oppressed solely for holding any belief, then we cannot claim to be democratic. The real battle should not be to hound out these people, or create a big media circus and jump on bandwagon's, it should be about educating people about exactly what fascism is so that people can correctly determine themselves whether it is right or wrong. Otherwise, you just get a bunch of idiots jumping around saying that he's a big nazi racist...when there's no evidence of him being either. Hallelujah!!!! I'll vote for that man!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2013 11:50:30 GMT
mt 1.Beating someone elses kids is against the law 2. Drink driving is against the law 3. Breaking health and hygene rules in a restaraunt is against the law. All of these scenarios would be punished by society via the courts. How does this relate to DiCanio? Are you saying this how you would want him to be dealt with for his political beliefs? It`s not forbidden to express such wiews as above, it`s forbidden to take action an accomplish this kind of wiews in to reality. My point was that as an employer I would choose somebody else to work for me if they expressed such wiews as above. The same goes for Di Canio, really. I wouldn`t employ a person with the spotlights on him seven days a week and with the possibility to have influence on a young peoples mind, if he expressed the same things Di Canio have done over the years. I think it would be bad for buisness( or the club ) with all that negative attention wich would follow such kind of an employment. that's an awful awful comparison mt.....you're basically saying you would refuse to emply di Canio based on his beliefs in case he actually went around carrying out actions that he believed in???? if not (which i'm guessing you're not) then, as i say, it's a terrible compariosn also, if you are saying that as a club owner you would refuse to emply him because hi spolitical beliefs brings unwarranted attention (Bad PR) to the club then you're breaking the law as you CAN'T legally refuse to employ anyone for a job based on their political beliefs.wehter you agree with law or not is irrelevant (unless you plan to petition Parliament with a view to them changing it)
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 3, 2013 11:50:59 GMT
I didn't actually say that Fascism can't exist within a Democracy. I said Fascism can't co-exist with democracy. I should perhaps have said that democracy can't be exercised within a Fascist state, which is what I was trying to say. One of the tenets of Fascism (it seems to me) is that it provides no way for the general population to change a regime by peaceful means - which is why I find it to be such a hateful creed. As I said in my earlier post Chile is unusual in that Pinochet, having seized power then introduced democracy (thus abandoning his fascist principles?) and that is what ended his regime. Very odd! PS - wouldn't my support for gay marriage be a bit of a bar to me being a Daily Mail journalist? Or are they planning to go on a wishy washy liberal offensive? (bravo) Ok I'll have one more go at this :) At the moment, there is a big media storm around his appointment (never saw the same when he started at Swindon) and a number of people saying that he shouldn't be allowed; or be made to publicly explain his beliefs and all manner of things. A number of people saying on here they'd not support Stoke if he was in charge of us just because of his political beliefs. Given that we do live in a (supposed) democratic society, those who hold them views that some may not believe in should not be just stamped down, oppressed or anything else. That itself is surely a founding principal of democracy where all such views are 'allowed'. There is currently no law that states it is illegal to hold fascist beliefs, but it hasnt stopped the media circus and its bandwagon creating a fuss. Otherwise, if a person cannot be entitled to hold a certain position purely based upon his political beliefs, then can we claim to live in a Democracy? Or are we ourselves then guilty of intolerance of certain political beliefs. I'm not at all disagreeing with you and trying to say that democracy cant exist within a fascist state (because it doesnt)...my point is that a democratic state must allow those who have fascist beliefs to co-exist and have the exact same rights as any other law abiding citizen. The moment anybody is oppressed solely for holding any belief, then we cannot claim to be democratic. The real battle should not be to hound out these people, or create a big media circus and jump on bandwagon's, it should be about educating people about exactly what fascism is so that people can correctly determine themselves whether it is right or wrong. Otherwise, you just get a bunch of idiots jumping around saying that he's a big nazi racist...when there's no evidence of him being either. Well, if you can have another go at this, so can I! But it will be my last - and I'm only having another bite at the cherry because I feel you may be misunderstanding what I believe. 1. I would not dream of denying anyone employment because of their political views. He has a right to his views - just as I have the right to detest them and the right not to want him as manager of my club. 2. I agree that the media is being hypocritical in staying (mostly) silent when Di Canio was at Swindon but going ape about it when he moves to Sunderland. 3. If Di Canio had never expressed fascist views then he probably would not be quizzed about them now. However, what has pissed me off most is that, having employed a manager who HAS sympathised with fascism in the past, Sunderland have chosen to imply that he has changed those views. Well, if he has changed those views then he should say so. It the moment he's hiding behind the Sunderland statement. That leaves huge doubts as to his integrity. Consider what would happen at our club if we appointed, say, Glen Hoddle who has expressed views that the disabled are paying for sins of a previous life. It would be legitimate for the press to point out that one of the club's official charities was a children's hospice and to ask if Hoddle had changed his views on disability. If Hoddle answered the question - fine - we can consider the answer on its merits. If, however, the club answered for him and he refused to answer then I'm sure the media (rightly) would get into a bit of a lather about it. The safe thing for people in the public eye is not to court controversy by going public with beliefs which may be far removed from the mainstream. Hoddle and Di Canio chose to go public with their minority beliefs several years ago and if they apply for jobs now they must expect to be quizzed on them. In some ways, because De Canio's beliefs are not illegal, the actual answer he gives to the press now matters less than the fact that he should be prepared to give an honest answer.
|
|
|
Post by nik80 on Apr 3, 2013 11:53:26 GMT
mt 1.Beating someone elses kids is against the law 2. Drink driving is against the law 3. Breaking health and hygene rules in a restaraunt is against the law. All of these scenarios would be punished by society via the courts. How does this relate to DiCanio? Are you saying this how you would want him to be dealt with for his political beliefs? It`s not forbidden to express such wiews as above, it`s forbidden to take action an accomplish this kind of wiews in to reality. My point was that as an employer I would choose somebody else to work for me if they expressed such wiews as above. The same goes for Di Canio, really. I wouldn`t employ a person with the spotlights on him seven days a week and with the possibility to have influence on a young peoples mind, if he expressed the same things Di Canio have done over the years. I think it would be bad for buisness( or the club ) with all that negative attention wich would follow such kind of an employment. Just what exactly is it that you think Paulo Di Canio has done in his past mt?! Your points on not employing someone because you think they would in someway tarnish the good reputation of the club is totally valid and I think having read this thread keenly, I would have serious reservations about Stoke City employing him myself But I think talk of Paulo Di Canio's potential for influencing young British peoples political persuasion is a little neurotic to be honest They haven't appointed Mussolini himself to manage Sunderland mate
|
|
mt
Youth Player
Posts: 355
|
Post by mt on Apr 3, 2013 12:00:07 GMT
I was under the impression that our law forbade discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, colour, gender (in most cases) or sexual orientation. Fascism is a political belief not a creed. I could be wrong of course...... in employment law you can't discriminate but there are instances where legally you can deny someone the opportunity of employment if their circumstances, whether they be race (i.e. unable to speak English fluently), religion (Muslims cannot become Christian Priests..which many forget IS a job)or disability even (someone with dwarfism who cannot reach high shelves in a warehouse for instance) and these are all perfectly legal justifications to deny someone a particular and specific job. both sexuality and political orientations however are considered "Sensitive personal data" and legally CANNOT be taken into account when someone applies for a job so whether people agree with it or not, di Canio would be able to sue ANY football club who refused to employ him simply because of his political beliefs...and considering we seemed to have moved quite significantly from the OP (with people still seemingly completely refusing to acknowledge the major differences between Fascism, Italian Fascism, Nazism, Hitler and Racism) then that's basically end of thread right there! But is it still "Sensitive personal data" if a person have choosed to express his wiews in public? And what if that wiews is the opposite of the values a company, or club, have? As an employer it would be an easy choice. It`s just to find somebody else who wouldn`t make the same negative vibes everytime his name is mentioned. It would be bad for buisness...
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Apr 3, 2013 12:07:56 GMT
I now want di canio as manager just to wind some of you up.
The bloke has done nothing wrong but is being treated by a hypocritical media as the second coming of hitler
And I'll repeat our current manager is aself proclaimed practising catholic, a religion that allowed and covered up child sex, a religion who's last leader was a nazi, a religion that doesn't allow a freedom of contraception, a religion that has caused countless deaths over the centuries
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 3, 2013 12:09:33 GMT
in employment law you can't discriminate but there are instances where legally you can deny someone the opportunity of employment if their circumstances, whether they be race (i.e. unable to speak English fluently), religion (Muslims cannot become Christian Priests..which many forget IS a job)or disability even (someone with dwarfism who cannot reach high shelves in a warehouse for instance) and these are all perfectly legal justifications to deny someone a particular and specific job. both sexuality and political orientations however are considered "Sensitive personal data" and legally CANNOT be taken into account when someone applies for a job so whether people agree with it or not, di Canio would be able to sue ANY football club who refused to employ him simply because of his political beliefs...and considering we seemed to have moved quite significantly from the OP (with people still seemingly completely refusing to acknowledge the major differences between Fascism, Italian Fascism, Nazism, Hitler and Racism) then that's basically end of thread right there! But is it still "Sensitive personal data" if a person have choosed to express his wiews in public? And what if that wiews is the opposite of the values a company, or club, have? As an employer it would be an easy choice. It`s just to find somebody else who wouldn`t make the same negative vibes everytime his name is mentioned. It would be bad for buisness... I'm with you on this mt. It would be unreasonable for me to ask the political beliefs of a job applicant. But if Nick Griffin turned up and asked for a job, I'd know his stated political beliefs. And I'd be within my rights to enquire of him how he felt his political beliefs would help him to contribute to the job he had applied for working with vulnerable people who had applied for asylum and were awaiting a decision by the government!
|
|
mt
Youth Player
Posts: 355
|
Post by mt on Apr 3, 2013 12:17:11 GMT
It`s not forbidden to express such wiews as above, it`s forbidden to take action an accomplish this kind of wiews in to reality. My point was that as an employer I would choose somebody else to work for me if they expressed such wiews as above. The same goes for Di Canio, really. I wouldn`t employ a person with the spotlights on him seven days a week and with the possibility to have influence on a young peoples mind, if he expressed the same things Di Canio have done over the years. I think it would be bad for buisness( or the club ) with all that negative attention wich would follow such kind of an employment. that's an awful awful comparison mt.....you're basically saying you would refuse to emply di Canio based on his beliefs in case he actually went around carrying out actions that he believed in???? if not (which i'm guessing you're not) then, as i say, it's a terrible compariosn also, if you are saying that as a club owner you would refuse to emply him because hi spolitical beliefs brings unwarranted attention (Bad PR) to the club then you're breaking the law as you CAN'T legally refuse to employ anyone for a job based on their political beliefs.wehter you agree with law or not is irrelevant (unless you plan to petition Parliament with a view to them changing it) If I was a club owner and I should employ a new manager, I wouldn`t even consider Di Canio. He disqualified himself the way he expressed his opinions in public over the years. I would rather try to find people with other values and, of course, knowledge. How can that be illegal?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2013 12:46:03 GMT
Lakeland, I dont think then we disagree on too much other than whether or not he should be questioned about them now and be inclined to answer them. You do, I don't in the sense of the media hounding him at his first presser.
The point you made about Hoddle for example. Yes, he said that in the context of his religious beleifs - much the same as TP was talking recently about his religious beliefs and national service. If he was being interviewed for Stoke in the summer (agenda alert!) then I'd imagine that Coates would ensure that the matter was discussed privately, possibly with representatives from Donna Louise so that those who it actually involved could privately express their concerns. But then you have to consider, if people do have a genuine concern with these things, then why bring them to light now?
If I was carrying out interviews and Nick Griffin walked through the door, I'd ask him exactly the same questions as I'd ask everybody else and judge him on merit for doing the job. If he then did anything against company policy, he'd be treated in the same manner as anybody else who broke that policy.
You may feel well within your rights asking how his political beliefs would interfere with the job, but he'd also be well within his rights to ask if the same question was put to everybody else, and if not, then refuse to answer on the basis that assumptions are being made about his professional ability to do a job based on personal beliefs.
As an edit - the sooner people stop giving folk like these a platform to stand on the better. Personal beliefs do not necessarily impact on professional ability. My company has build whacking big dual carriageways through the countryside and people's farmland. Darn right i'm gutted for them, but thats my job. I was never once asked 'How do you feel about us building dual carriageways through peoples back gardens', I was asked about y ability to do the job in hand
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 3, 2013 12:57:05 GMT
Lakeland, I dont think then we disagree on too much other than whether or not he should be questioned about them now and be inclined to answer them. You do, I don't in the sense of the media hounding him at his first presser. The point you made about Hoddle for example. Yes, he said that in the context of his religious beleifs - much the same as TP was talking recently about his religious beliefs and national service. If he was being interviewed for Stoke in the summer (agenda alert!) then I'd imagine that Coates would ensure that the matter was discussed privately, possibly with representatives from Donna Louise so that those who it actually involved could privately express their concerns. But then you have to consider, if people do have a genuine concern with these things, then why bring them to light now? If I was carrying out interviews and Nick Griffin walked through the door, I'd ask him exactly the same questions as I'd ask everybody else and judge him on merit for doing the job. If he then did anything against company policy, he'd be treated in the same manner as anybody else who broke that policy. You may feel well within your rights asking how his political beliefs would interfere with the job, but he'd also be well within his rights to ask if the same question was put to everybody else, and if not, then refuse to answer on the basis that assumptions are being made about his professional ability to do a job based on personal beliefs. I'm pretty sure if Nick Griffin really did apply for a job, something about him would stop me offering him a job. Luckily, it will never happen so I'll never have to see if I'm right.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 3, 2013 13:21:49 GMT
This sums up our society to a tee, to be successful when looking to employ a football manager. You should be looking to employ the best you can find. Same applies to almost any other occupation with an element of competition either sporting or otherwise. I don't know whether Di Canio is the best Sunderland could of found but Ellis Short obviously thought he was. Point is we seem to hamstring ourselves in this country by only wanting to work with people we approve of or like. It seems a very limiting culture.
|
|
mt
Youth Player
Posts: 355
|
Post by mt on Apr 3, 2013 13:51:46 GMT
This sums up our society to a tee, to be successful when looking to employ a football manager. You should be looking to employ the best you can find. Same applies to almost any other occupation with an element of competition either sporting or otherwise. I don't know whether Di Canio is the best Sunderland could of found but Ellis Short obviously thought he was. Point is we seem to hamstring ourselves in this country by only wanting to work with people we approve of or like. It seems a very limiting culture. Yes, you should try to employ the best you can find, but to work as a very much high-profiled manager also means that you have to bring some values that the company( or club ) which employes you find acceptable, reasonable and hopefully will be good for your buisness. I don`t think the answer to that is to employ a person which could make a lot of people stop buying whatever you produce, because those people don`t want to identify themselves with the wiews that one of the most significant people in the companys/clubs organization express. I don`t believe that people who run a buisness care to much about "freedom of speech", and that kind of things, if it`s not suits them. They just want to earn as much money as they can. If it would help them achieve that by employing a fascist, I`m sure that some would have done it. But most of them would probably conclude with that such a move wouldn`t have been very wise...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2013 13:59:26 GMT
I'm pretty sure if Nick Griffin really did apply for a job, something about him would stop me offering him a job. Luckily, it will never happen so I'll never have to see if I'm right. LP, I'm pretty sure the fact that him being a complete fuckwit would be enough
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 3, 2013 14:06:19 GMT
I'm pretty sure if Nick Griffin really did apply for a job, something about him would stop me offering him a job. Luckily, it will never happen so I'll never have to see if I'm right. LP, I'm pretty sure the fact that him being a complete fuckwit would be enough pob, I have met him once - at the last European election count for North West England - I was there for another party. He's one of the few people I've met who actually made my skin crawl when I was close to him. And there was an uncomfortable air of menace about him and his group. Memo to self - man up and stop being a wimp!
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Apr 3, 2013 14:36:58 GMT
LP, I'm pretty sure the fact that him being a complete fuckwit would be enough pob, I have met him once - at the last European election count for North West England - I was there for another party. He's one of the few people I've met who actually made my skin crawl when I was close to him. And there was an uncomfortable air of menace about him and his group. Memo to self - man up and stop being a wimp! He does look like a bit of a wrong 'un in fairness!
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 3, 2013 14:49:33 GMT
to demonstrate how eay it is to misjudge, try the following. It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts.. Here are the facts about the three candidates. Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes And drinks 8 to 10 Martinis a day. Candidate B: He was kicked out of office twice, Sleeps until noon, Used opium in college And drinks a quart of whiskey every evening. Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero, He's a vegetarian, Doesn't smoke, Drinks an occasional beer And never committed adultery. Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first ... No peeking, and then scroll down for the response. Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Candidate B is Winston Churchill. Candidate C is Adolph Hitler. Never trust a veggie and didn't Hitler dabble in a bit of under age sex allegedly? There was definitely roumours that he was infatuated with a young girl. From memory it was his bodyguard/driver's daughter. I can't remember. pob, I have met him once - at the last European election count for North West England - I was there for another party. He's one of the few people I've met who actually made my skin crawl when I was close to him. And there was an uncomfortable air of menace about him and his group. Memo to self - man up and stop being a wimp! He does look like a bit of a wrong 'un in fairness! He looks like he should wear a monocle.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 3, 2013 15:07:49 GMT
This sums up our society to a tee, to be successful when looking to employ a football manager. You should be looking to employ the best you can find. Same applies to almost any other occupation with an element of competition either sporting or otherwise. I don't know whether Di Canio is the best Sunderland could of found but Ellis Short obviously thought he was. Point is we seem to hamstring ourselves in this country by only wanting to work with people we approve of or like. It seems a very limiting culture. Yes, you should try to employ the best you can find, but to work as a very much high-profiled manager also means that you have to bring some values that the company( or club ) which employes you find acceptable, reasonable and hopefully will be good for your buisness. I don`t think the answer to that is to employ a person which could make a lot of people stop buying whatever you produce, because those people don`t want to identify themselves with the wiews that one of the most significant people in the companys/clubs organization express. I don`t believe that people who run a buisness care to much about "freedom of speech", and that kind of things, if it`s not suits them. They just want to earn as much money as they can. If it would help them achieve that by employing a fascist, I`m sure that some would have done it. But most of them would probably conclude with that such a move wouldn`t have been very wise... I'm just not sure how many people really do behave that way though. Personally I'm not a fan of the Tories but if I'm going out for a meal and the landlord or owner happens to be a dyed in the wool Tory but also happens to put on a deliscious meal at the right price, would I withold my custom? would I hell. I'm concerned about immigration but if a Polish builder would do a quality job for a better price than his English counterparts, would I use him? of course I would. As an employer you have a code of conduct and everyone no matter what their views are expected to abide by it or accept the consequences of their actions or behavior. I firmly believe that footballers should play football, unless what they do outside of work affects their performance on the pitch I'm not really interested. Likewise a football manager, I just want the bloke or woman for that matter who produces the most exciting spectacle combined with an acceptable level of achievement. I really couldn't care less whether they're a good egg or not. Its nothing so principled as protecting liberty or freedom of speech, just a simple ability to prioritise what is most relevant to the job in hand.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Apr 3, 2013 16:22:28 GMT
to demonstrate how eay it is to misjudge, try the following. It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts.. Here are the facts about the three candidates. Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes And drinks 8 to 10 Martinis a day. Candidate B: He was kicked out of office twice, Sleeps until noon, Used opium in college And drinks a quart of whiskey every evening. Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero, He's a vegetarian, Doesn't smoke, Drinks an occasional beer And never committed adultery. Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first ... No peeking, and then scroll down for the response. Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Candidate B is Winston Churchill. Candidate C is Adolph Hitler. One problem: These are not THE Facts, they are some facts, there is a huge difference. Anyway he has come out now and stated that he is not a Fascist. He has been well advised. There should be no ambiguity in this matter for someone managing such a huge institution.
|
|
|
Post by surreystokie on Apr 3, 2013 18:18:09 GMT
flo, you have a problem, if you are assuming that your child is being taught by anyone whose politics offend you! This is a democratic society and all - even teachers and football managers - are entitled to their opinions. If not, why the vote?
Hope you weren't a Blair-hater when Iraq intervention was declared and discovered that your child's teacher was left wing. Oh dear .......... let's get back to football.
|
|