Sky Sports presenters making sexist comments

parker kent

MyKeyG wrote: »

The fact is we don't know because all we see is what the media have transmitted. I just simply refuse to accept what the media are trying to shovel down my neck for a story and judge thereon. A story that to me could just as easily represent the regular goings on in any office. You asked the question where the line should be drawn. My answer is there shouldn't be a line. Workplace banter between people who know it's in jest should be allowed completely or not at all.

What about the people that have spoken out about Sky either anonymously or publically such as Gabby Logan? Surely we should consider what they say? They suggest that it is not just banter between people who know it is jest.

Stheno

MyKeyG wrote: »

Ok. I don't see how that's supposed to be an argument but fair play.

My point is that in most (if not all actually) of the work/professional environments that I have worked in, such comments would no be tolerated, even your comments to your Polish co-worker would be very ill recieved by anyone overhearing.

Ergo you posting that the story of Grey/Keys could as easily represent the regular goings on in any office does not ring true in my experience. I've usually worked in a fairly male dominated environment (six out of my last seven jobs) and such behaviour/comments simply would not have been part of the daily "banter"

Ickle Magoo

MyKeyG wrote: »

First of all can I remind you that the context in which I used the word 'joke' was regarding things said to me by female colleagues in the workplace so I don't know where the 'mate down the pub' comparrisson comes in.

My point is it's not the material it's the audiance. Me and a Polish colleague used to rip the p*ss out of each other all the time. Nobody got offended they knew what we were at. However if somebody recorded me jokingly calling him a lazy Polish B**tard without showing him laughing at it, it could certainly be used as evidence against my character. Does it look to you like Charlotte or anybody in the studio had any problem with it at the time? Sincerely? She might have thought it was hillarious for all we know.

The difference is what is deemed professional conduct and professional misconduct in most professional scenarios. I don't know where you work but using overtly sexual, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc, terminology would not be acceptable conduct even if neither your friend or yourself objected in a large number of workplaces - especially if other employees have to listen to or witness what is being said.

Sky has stated Charlotte didn't think it was hilarious - which you can of course ignore - or refuse to believe - but I'd ask again, if it was all such hilarious banter from a couple of wee gems then where are all of Gray/Keys colleagues from the past 2 decades to assure us how out of context a well loved work-mate has been taken?

MyKeyG wrote: »

The fact is we don't know because all we see is what the media have transmitted. I just simply refuse to accept what the media are trying to shovel down my neck for a story and judge thereon. A story that to me could just as easily represent the regular goings on in any office. You asked the question where the line should be drawn. My answer is there shouldn't be a line. Workplace banter between people who know it's in jest should be allowed completely or not at all.

You are making the assumption, again, that everyone in an office should appreciate sexist innuendo and lewd behaviour and consider it joking just because you do. I also disagree it would be going on in any office, in fact the only time I've witnessed a colleague making a very public statement regarding another colleague in sexual terms they went on to face a disciplinary hearing and eventually lost their job.

You don't think there should be a line? I think you are mistaken and I think an employee pulling the same stunt while witnessed by a large number of other employees would suffer the same fate in many other professional outfits.

There is a reason why equality legislation exists and it's because what some people find funny, just isn't. It can take the form of bullying, it can be passive-aggressive prejudice and it can make for a thoroughly unpleasant working environment - all things most good employers seek to avoid. There is simply no need for adults and paid professionals to have to denigrate and salivate over their colleagues and quite rightly many employees see it as juvenile and unprofessional.

ickle

Someone making the "tuck in my shirt" thing wouldn't be "normal goings on" in any office i've ever heard of. I imagine nobody in this place would even dream of doing such a thing in here, whatever they may get up to out of office hours.
I can't see how anyone would consider it normal

ickle wrote:

but I'd ask again, if it was all such hilarious banter from a couple of wee gems then where are all of Gray/Keys colleagues from the past 2 decades to assure us how out of context a well loved work-mate has been taken?

There is a reason why equality legislation exists and it's because what some people find funny, just isn't. It can take the form of bullying, it can be passive-aggressive prejudice and it can make for a thoroughly unpleasant working environment - all things most good employers seek to avoid.

Two excellent points

dfx-

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's not just a microphone lurking - it's an entire studio filled with people! It's the equivalent of making a knob gag at your colleagues expense in the middle of a meeting. I would actually agree that people need to realise the reality of the workplace because I suspect many would get into very hot water for doing likewise.

In fairness, it's not a direct comparison. It is the equivalent of a 'quiet word' during a coffee break or cigarette break of that meeting.

jayteecork

Why is it that when women say stuff like "men can't multitask" (and they do it constantly) there's no sexist outcry from men?

Probably because we have better things to be doing.

Ickle Magoo

dfx- wrote: »

In fairness, it's not a direct comparison. It is the equivalent of a 'quiet word' during a coffee break or cigarette break of that meeting.

Only if you say it knowing your coffee break or cigarette break is going to be heard and witnessed by hundreds of your fellow employees. I'm not sure why people think being hooked up to a mic and filmed in a fully operational recording studio making lewd gestures to a fellow professional is the equivalent of having a word in your pal's ear during break time.

jayteecork wrote: »

Why is it that when women say stuff like "men can't multitask" (and they do it constantly) there's no sexist outcry from men?

Probably because we have better things to be doing.

Ironically, given your second statement, there's an 4 page thread on it in tGC.

flyer88

Gray was a tosser for saying stuff bout the lineswoman but the other comment to georgie whats her face was just a joke, and in fairness shes not that bad looking so

Ickle Magoo

If anything the whole "she looked sexy so making lewd comments/gestures is acceptable and understandable" defence out-juveniles the act.

dfx-

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Only if you say it knowing your coffee break or cigarette break is going to be heard and witnessed by hundreds of your fellow employees. I'm not sure why people think being hooked up to a mic and filmed in a fully operational recording studio making lewd gestures to a fellow professional is the equivalent of having a word in your pal's ear during break time.

Before a game, at half time and after the game is their 'middle of a meeting'. Their 'break time' is during the games. There'd be I'd say 6-7 people - at a push - in that studio, not hundreds. The parallels are obvious to me.

flyer88

but id say she gets it alot

flyer88

flyer88 wrote: »

Gray was a tosser for saying stuff bout the lineswoman but the other comment to georgie whats her face was just a joke, and in fairness shes not that bad looking so

So what? Do you want to finish that sentence? How does it go, "she's good looking so she's asking for it"? Or maybe "she's good looking so she deserves any lewd comments she gets and shouldn't complain"?

flyer88

Well what can ye expect like?

Ickle Magoo

dfx- wrote: »

Before a game, at half time and after the game is their 'middle of a meeting'. Their 'break time' is during the games. There'd be I'd say 6-7 people - at a push - in that studio, not hundreds. The parallels are obvious to me.

That's simply not true. People don't just run to their stations the minute the programme goes live, everyone is in place to do sound, lighting and film checks. Neither does everyone run out the studio or production offices the minute live filming is cut. If anything, there are more people in a studio prior to going live than during.

Ickle Magoo

flyer88 wrote: »

Well what can ye expect like?

At a bare minimum? That you read the charter before posting in this forum again.

flyer88

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

At a bare minimum? That you read the charter before posting in this forum again.

Or not..

Ickle Magoo

flyer88 given a weeks holiday for ignoring mod warning and trolling.

dfx-

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's simply not true. People don't just run to their stations the minute the programme goes live, everyone is in place to do sound, lighting and film checks. Neither does everyone run out the studio or production offices the minute live filming is cut. If anything, there are more people in a studio prior to going live than during.

The studios in the football grounds really aren't or should I say certainly don't look big enough to hold many more than a sound guy, cameramen and maybe a runner. They're mostly small boxes in old grounds like Molineux (presumably). There might be a couple of more producers in an outside broadcast truck, but not many more people within earshot at all.

Maple

dfx- wrote: »

In fairness, it's not a direct comparison. It is the equivalent of a 'quiet word' during a coffee break or cigarette break of that meeting.

Utter hogwash. This was not a quiet informal word between two colleagues as they wander down town at lunch to grab a sandwich, it was a blatant overtly sexual comment to make in a place of work during working hours. It was intimidating, an utterly inappropriate comment. Personally I think her complete lack of reaction to the comment only serves to highlight her feeling uncomfortable, a case of ignore the sap and perhaps he'll shut up.

dfx- wrote: »

Before a game, at half time and after the game is their 'middle of a meeting'. Their 'break time' is during the games. There'd be I'd say 6-7 people - at a push - in that studio, not hundreds. The parallels are obvious to me.

I personally feel you're clutching at straws to even try and count how many people would be there. The fact remains he set out to humiliate her and demean her in front of their colleagues, simply because she's a woman.

Ickle Magoo

dfx- wrote: »

The studios in the football grounds really aren't or should I say certainly don't look big enough to hold many more than a sound guy, cameramen and maybe a runner. They're mostly small boxes. There might be a couple of more producers in an outside broadcast truck, but not many more people within earshot at all.

He was ultimately sacked for the comments and gestures he made to a female colleague in a broadcasting studio - I'm not sure why numbers of staff in an outside broadcast are relevant to that. Regardless, whether it was a handful of staff in an outside broadcasting unit or a whole studio and production crew - it doesn't detract from how unprofessional and inappropriate it is to make such comments while in a professional capacity.

dfx-

I've hit the brick wall "ultimately and regardless" arguments. I never argued it was appropriate or that it wasn't a professional capacity regardless. I'm arguing about the direct comparison that was made in my original post which will still stand.

maple, I'm referring to the Assistant Referee comment, I'm not sure we're on about the same thing.

There is a difference between on air and off air in their profession. It's not the same thing. Ultimately and regardless, their comments rightly came back to bite them.

Ickle Magoo

Except

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

making lewd gestures to a fellow professional

cannot possibly be misconstrued as a comparison regarding general professional conduct and the comments that were made about Massey.

Laisurg

fatmammycat wrote: »

This is a business decision made by SKY, I am certain there are a number of reasons Gray has been cannedapart from this. But if a woman made a stupid sexist or racist remark and her company sacked her, would you defend her so readily?

Of course, it would be wrong either way regardless of gender, although i've heard is a bit of an arse from a few people so there may well have been other contributing factors.