That’s rather harsh in favor of the employer. But in this case we are talking political speech which gets stronger protectionOk I was specifically talking about the point you made that :
"privately i.e. under the capacity of a private citizen and not as representing the club.
This is not a conflict of interest as they aren't conflicting here, the club could take measures to oppose racism (lol as its the essex nazis but anyway) and an individual within the club could hold racist views"
so assuming that West Ham do not want to be associated with C18 they may be able to sack him.
https://blogs.orrick.com/employment...-tweets-may-be-a-fair-dismissal-under-uk-law/
The EAT’s judgment in this case offers a very useful insight into how the employment courts in the UK will consider the relevant issues when it comes to decisions taken by employers in response to employee misconduct on social media sites. The decision has the potential to enable UK employers to take more robust action on social media infringements in the future as follows:
- Where a number of Game stores followed Mr Laws, his “private” Twitter account was not really private;
- Given the way Twitter operated (as opposed to Facebook, for example), there was no real distinction between work and personal use of the site – Mr Laws could have, but did not, create separate accounts for private and professional use;
- Mr Laws did not utilise the restriction settings on his Twitter account, so his tweets were publically available, not least of all to any Game store following him;
- Mr Laws knew that he was followed by Game stores when he tweeted and he did not address this – in fact he may have actively encouraged stores to follow him;
- An employee’s freedom of expression has to be balanced against the employer’s need to manage reputational risk in its employees’ tweets (and other social media communications);
- It was not necessary for Game to show that the tweets had caused offense, only that they were entitled to consider that they may cause offense;
- The offensive tweets did not need to be about the employer to justify the decision, and it was also not necessary for the Twitter account to identify the employer in question to justify the decision – what was important was that the tweets were offensive, and stores, employees and customers might have read them.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
That’s rather harsh in favor of the employer. But in this case we are talking political speech which gets stronger protection
Glen Hoddle got the sack for a religious belief shared in private.
Fat Sam got the sack for the appearance of being dodgy.
If west ham thinks this has damaged their reputation they will let him go.
If anything it’s solidified their reputation. Expect their fans to erect a papier-mâché statue within days.
I think there are quite a few Tottenham fans that are in with that lot.
Last edited:
I can’t wear a cap anymore cos of West Ham.
That’s why I hate them.
That’s why I hate them.
Talking out of the side of your mouth is out too, fortunately perhaps
And podgy. Double whammy.
Every club will have fans with some dubious views sadly.
Two Tottenham fans started it.
They started the FLA but it all went a bit Pete Tong over money (what else) so i believe they are no longer there (?) & the DFLA was formed out of its ashes.
Didn't hoddle spout his beliefs on karma and reincarnation on an interview on that show now hosted by Holly Willoughby's tits?
Glen Hoddle's contract was paid up in full ... Sam left by mutual agreement with one year's salary for 67 days work ... if West Ham get rid of Mark Phillips it will probably be with a big pay-off ....
Sacking him for attending a march is a non-starter ... sacking him for offensive tweets is possible ... but have you seen some of the stuff David Sullivan's son has tweeted out? ... they haven't sacked him ... good lawyer would prove 'double standards' in five minutes ... won't stop him being sacked but it will fuck up West Ham if they open that can-of-worms ...
In the broader picture if he gets the sack you will have journalists crawling all over the social media sites of every employee of every football club just looking for 'dirt' it's what the cunts do... is that truly the society we want ...
I know for a fact a couple of Spurs employees (and probably many more) post some seriously offensive stuff on this site, but who cares it's just the feckin' internet, it's home to keyboard warriors who live in basements, it's hardly societies greatest threat ....
The lad went to a legal march, he holds some repulsive personal beliefs, but as far as we know he's committed no crimes ... when we have to start standing trial in front of the 'thought-police' we're all fucked ....
No off the record chat with a 'friendly' journo was when it first come out
His been suspended, they are a brand and don't want to be associated with racism.
Not arguing the rights or wrongs about it all but people get sacked all the time for personal beliefs
Thin end of the wedge isn't it. I am not, nor ever have been a member of the FLA/DFLA but to the best of my knowledge (i stand ready to be corrected) they have never been officially categorised as a 'far right extremists' apart from in the media. Surely the bloke is just exercising his democratic right to march?
I think the whole Lads Against the Forrins thing is beyond pathetic, and I'm always one for seeing West Ham made to look stupid or bad, but to play devil's advocate for a moment, is this any worse than Lucas tweeting his support for a similarly dislikeable (to liberal eyes) candidate in the Brazilian election?
Quite a few, myself included, said then they didn't care about his personal views, perhaps we should apply the same yardstick to this fat cunt
Quite a few, myself included, said then they didn't care about his personal views, perhaps we should apply the same yardstick to this fat cunt
its probably the association of his twitter account with Westham that done it.
Can an employee be dismissed for being a member of an extreme political party, for example the BNP? | FAQs | Tools | XpertHR.co.uk
If the employee's membership has an adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out the job, or on the employer's reputation, for example if there is a hostile reaction from customers to the employee leading to a boycott of the employer's services, a dismissal could potentially be fair for "some other substantial reason".
this is the justification they will give if they decide to let him go, its a brand and they are trying to improve its image. Baroness succubus has no principles so will play to the crowd.
No its not any different really, only difference is value to the club.
I know nothing about the organisers of the march, but if there are links to far right or far right views then it absolutely affects his position at the club.
He's a coach, a teacher and influencer of kids who come from very wide and diverse ethnic backgrounds, if these are his "personal beliefs" then that impacts on his ability to teach/coach and treat those he's teaching.
Here is a selection of the West Ham U18 squad he coaches:
Anang, Sanneh, Jinadu, Dalipi, Okotcha, Belie, Nsumbu, Adu, Appiah, Baptiste, Mhassani, Khouri, Kileba, Mingi, Nebyle, Ngakia.
Just wondering how they and their parents feel that someone who openly and passionately holds the "beliefs" (assuming that the group is indeed affiliated with ultra right wing beliefs) that he does?
He is entitled to his beliefs (if legal), just as everyone is, but there are serious ramifications for the club, being "PC" or not is a smokescreen to the real issue of whether he has the fundamental ability to carry out his role without bias or prejudice. West Ham should also have serious concerns on whether this affects their ability to attract young players to their academy in the future. Will the kids currently there wish to remain? This type of position is very important, just as it is in schools etc. It's his function at the day-to-day level that is surely what is compromised not whether it's "PC" or not.
There are obvious financial ramifications too, with sponsors and potential sponsors unwilling to have their brand associated with the club.
He's a coach, a teacher and influencer of kids who come from very wide and diverse ethnic backgrounds, if these are his "personal beliefs" then that impacts on his ability to teach/coach and treat those he's teaching.
Here is a selection of the West Ham U18 squad he coaches:
Anang, Sanneh, Jinadu, Dalipi, Okotcha, Belie, Nsumbu, Adu, Appiah, Baptiste, Mhassani, Khouri, Kileba, Mingi, Nebyle, Ngakia.
Just wondering how they and their parents feel that someone who openly and passionately holds the "beliefs" (assuming that the group is indeed affiliated with ultra right wing beliefs) that he does?
He is entitled to his beliefs (if legal), just as everyone is, but there are serious ramifications for the club, being "PC" or not is a smokescreen to the real issue of whether he has the fundamental ability to carry out his role without bias or prejudice. West Ham should also have serious concerns on whether this affects their ability to attract young players to their academy in the future. Will the kids currently there wish to remain? This type of position is very important, just as it is in schools etc. It's his function at the day-to-day level that is surely what is compromised not whether it's "PC" or not.
There are obvious financial ramifications too, with sponsors and potential sponsors unwilling to have their brand associated with the club.
That's very well argued, and also makes a difference between this case and Lucas's