Dear Guest
Thank you for visiting! est189 will soon be closing its doors (do forums have doors?) please visit the following thread - (to wail & cry perhaps?)
https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4002484#post4002484
Thanjk you.
Paul.S
It's a private email so even though it was some godawful stuff I don't like the whole intrusion thing.
At the same time you can't be in a public position where you are talking about fairness, equality and non-discrimination and hold those private views. He now has no credibility as a spokesperson for that organisation so he has to go, surely. What he said was awful.
I actually know the recipient of the emails. Hope they didn't reply in kind.
It's a private email so even though it was some godawful stuff I don't like the whole intrusion thing.
At the same time you can't be in a public position where you are talking about fairness, equality and non-discrimination and hold those private views. He now has no credibility as a spokesperson for that organisation so he has to go, surely. What he said was awful.
I actually know the recipient of the emails. Hope they didn't reply in kind.
I've not actually seen the content. What kind of thing did he say?
As in she was 'gash at her job', which I'd have no problem with, or was it she was 'gash at her job because she's a woman' ?, which is obviously unacceptable.
"I will make the boys feel your support"
Jurgen Klopp June 2020
It's a private email so even though it was some godawful stuff I don't like the whole intrusion thing.
At the same time you can't be in a public position where you are talking about fairness, equality and non-discrimination and hold those private views. He now has no credibility as a spokesperson for that organisation so he has to go, surely. What he said was awful.
I actually know the recipient of the emails. Hope they didn't reply in kind.
I remember reading an article that I'm pretty sure said it was a two way exchange.
He has to go now that it's been made public but the invasion of privacy thing should be investigated by the police. Whatever you think about the guy his career has been ruined by someone snooping into his private emails. That's equally wrong.
I'm no legal expert but the people that have caused the real damage to him are the newspapers that published what seems to be stolen private correspondence. Surely they have to be investigated and charged by the police too?
As in she was 'gash at her job', which I'd have no problem with, or was it she was 'gash at her job because she's a woman' ?, which is obviously unacceptable.
From what I've read it was the slang word for vagina.
I remember reading an article that I'm pretty sure said it was a two way exchange.
He has to go now that it's been made public but the invasion of privacy thing should be investigated by the police. Whatever you think about the guy his career has been ruined by someone snooping into his private emails. That's equally wrong.
I'm no legal expert but the people that have caused the real damage to him are the newspapers that published what seems to be stolen private correspondence. Surely they have to be investigated and charged by the police too?
Well, there's the whole public interest thing there. The right to privacy isn't absolute. Probably no leg to stand on. Maybe the ex employee has committed some offence, but it would look a bit vindictive to be pursuing them for revealing something you didn't think was bad enough to be getting rid of your exec for. Sound advice might be to stay away from that for damage limitation etc.
However repugnant we may think what he said is, as far as I know he hasn't broken any law. What may have been illegal is the theft and use of private correspondence.
I hate the public interest argument for invasion of privacy. I think the bar needs to be set very high to justify invasion of privacy, such as breaking the law. Not being a hypocrit. Let's be honest just about everyone is two faced and do and say things in private that they would never do or say in public.
It's a shame, no one is perfect, but many good people avoid high profile jobs and political positions out of fear for the invasion of privacy by media to satisfy a nosey public who then justify it because it's 'in the public interest'.
And then everyone says that they deserve it because they knew what they were getting into. Yes they do, but it's in the public interest to respect privacy anyway because a lot of good and capable people don't take important positions because they know what they'd be getting themselves into.
As I say, whatever his real views are and however repugnant his words might be the only thing that should matter to the public are his actions in office which is public information and can be debated.
If he has implemented any sexist policies, or clearly held back capable women from taking positions of office or done something to hinder women's football then he can be judged and called out on that.
Comment