Politically Correct person makes man kill himself.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Ed2020

I never said there was a law that says person B must be suspended. My original statement was about the relevance of third parties overhearing and being offended. There is plenty in law that says that this is relevant - it is not just about the nature of the conversation between person A and person B and how they both perceived it.

In response to my point about it being a managerial decision on how to handle it depending on what actually occured, you said it wasn't a managerial decision, it was a point of law.

Originally Posted by Ed2020

Um... pardon? In the final part of your post (#61) you referred to "the two [people] involved". When having conversations and banter in the workplace you need to consider who else may overhear. As somebody overheard there were not two people involved - there were three.

We're talking about someone overhearing a conversation which two people are involved in, ie the person making the comment and the person it is directed at, understand?

[Ed2020]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Sorry. that should be the converation heard about the 2 fit or fat ladies at work

I think I'm still confused. No, actually I am still confused.

---------- Post added at 00:36 ---------- Previous post was at 00:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

In response to my point about it being a managerial decision on how to handle it depending on what actually occured, you said it wasn't a managerial decision, it was a point of law.

Possibly I've misunderstood or not made myself clear. You described asking the person to whom the comments had been made whether they were offended. How they felt about it is not the only consideration. They may have found the whole thing hilariously funny whilst the third person found it highly offensive. The third person's perception may be significant, whether the manager likes it or not.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

We're talking about someone overhearing a conversation which two people are involved in, ie the person making the comment and the person it is directed at, understand?

Yes thank you. I've been quite clear on that right the way through.

[Xaccers]

There's been a misunderstanding
I said not just ask the person the comment was made to, but also ask the person (the 3rd party who wasn't involved in the comment making or receiving) why they found it offensive and why they think something should be done, and what should be done, considering the two people involved in the comments have no issue with it.

So if Jeff over hears Tony calling his good mate Bob "Sooty", and Jeff finds it offensive as he, like Bob, is of African origin and reports it to his manager/HR.
The manager checks with Bob and finds out Bob's had that nickname since he was 6 and Tony certainly didn't say it to be offensive.
This should be explained to Jeff, who most likely will understand that no offense was meant and not have a problem with it.
At no point should Tony be suspended.

Now lets say Jeff over hears Adolf calling Isaac a stinking Jew, so reports it to his manager. Isaac says he's not phased by it, Adolf is just a bigot and he doesn't let it bother him. The intent however was to insult and cause offence, as such Adolf should be disciplined for it.

While Tony isn't going to call anyone else Sooty because it's not their nickname, Adolf may say such things to any members of staff (or even customers) who are Jewish.

[Ed2020]

I was just wondering whether there'd been a misunderstanding and in fact we were both in complete agreement. It seems that is exactly the case.

I concur - that's exactly how it should have been handled. It would have made for a far happier end to the event for everyone concerned.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Gary L

The manager or supervisor was the one who over heard the joke and took offence to it?

No, it is not assumed the he/she took offence to it. As a manager it is their job to investigate and challenge such behaviour. It is the job of management to ensure fairness in all situations and if this comment went unchallenged, it would send a message that management have no interest in ensuring that inappropriate language can play no part in working life.

---------- Post added at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

then he should have investigated it with a modicum of common sense WHEN a complaint had been made and not before ,it's not any managers place to complain on other peoples behalf

Again, another assumption that the manager in question took offence, rather than actually doing their job.

---------- Post added at 12:05 ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 ----------

Originally Posted by superbiatch

In my NHS experience, to suspend someone is not done lightly - in fact its near on impossible (has just taken me over 3 years to terminate someone's employment who has been off sick for 5 years!). I suspect there is more to this story than meets the eye.

Indeed. It is entirely possible that this is not the first time an incident of this nature had occurred within the company. With the tragic news of this man's fate, it is now unlikely we shall ever know. If the company release any statement referring to any such incidents, they will most likely be accused of a smear campaign.

---------- Post added at 12:18 ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 ----------

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

"It is understood that the man was a close friend of Mr Amor and was not offended. However, it was overheard by someone else who lodged a formal complaint."

I suggest that you read that carefully once or twice again and think about the reality of what happened.
Personally I can't get away from thoughts of the old East German Stasi..

This is a typical device used by the Daily Heil in order to cover themselves from being accused of making things up. I am not necessarily saying that is the case here, but their track record speaks volumes.

---------- Post added at 12:22 ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 ----------

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

Since I have seen and heard such language between black colleagues yes I would say that is entirely acceptable. It's up to the people involved to decide what is acceptable and absolutely NOT the business of any 3rd party to involve themselves.

I am afraid that is not quite true. If ANY of my employees, black or white, used such language they would be facing disciplinary procedures. I do not bias my colleague relations policies to distinguish between "street talk" or "banter" and what is considered to be professional and appropriate language.

Whoever it was that took offence and reported this was wrong to do so without doing a little questioning beforehand and i speak as someone that has been in this situation before and the issue was resolved with some quiet discrete talks between the parties involved with no bad feeling at the end of it. What we ultimately have here is another example of a culture that is growing in the UK and it is not a pleasant or enjoyable culture it is highly destructive and damaging to both individuals and institutions.

Once upon a time the UK was renowned for it's ability to handle situations with humour and banter between friends but now we have to be careful of the growing and ever present "i am ready to be offended on someone else's behalf" brigade that are infesting so many places. As for this man having underlying issue's and this single incident was the last straw, no not really this was a man who had worked all his life had built relationships clearly with his co worker's.

Maybe work formed a massive part of his life the threat of having that taken from him because of something so petty may well be all that was needed to send this individual into suicide. That is putting aside the fact that at 61 this guy wasn't likely to get further employment i think that is enough to send anyone over the edge.

If this was a case of someone commiting suicide because of continued and sustained offence from one to another no that would not be correct but also i doubt that such prolonged offence would have gone unnoticed and more then one person would have complained and appropriate action taken also not what happened in this case. In this case one person got offended on behalf of one other person and without using any brain power or common sense made a complaint and potentially massively affected this man.

It is time in this country for us to tell those looking to be offended to get stuffed and lets get back to those old days where friends could have a laugh and banter without one eye over their shoulder and back to the days where a conversation between two people stayed that way unless there was very very good reason for it not too which wasn't the case here.

We really have become a nation of cry baby's always looking for someone else to handle things for us and that is funnily enough the general creeping culture that follows a socialist government who take more time to interfere in the lifestyles of people rather then working to make the country better.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by martyh

yes and it would be upto them(the offended) to report it

The problem with such a principle is the message it sends. If such language is allowed to be used in a work environment it sends a signal to those who wish to use it to bully and prejudice. They will continue to use such language, safe in the knowledge that action will only be taken if their victim complains. As we well know, many bullying victims remain so because they are afraid to complain. In fact, that is how things used to be "in the bad old days," when things like this went on unpunished. Nothing happened until someone sees what is happening and complains on their behalf.

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

The issue really is that are we going to allow legislation to underpin all our dealings with one another and do some business have too much layers of red tape in dealing with issues of isms.

We do seem to be at times entering the world of, if you will forgive the unintended pun,black and white.The tints and hues of grey are being eradicated from our lives.Our society does seem to have become an either/or one with no allowances for manoeuvrability within defined perimeters.

Sigh!

The trouble is that legislation was necessary to do so. Up until recently, racism and bullying was rife in the workplace and went unchallenged. It was wholly necessary to enact laws to protect the victims of such behaviour.

---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

as long as common decency is maintained yes ,because as long as no complaints are made then no one is offended ,and if by chance someone is offended then they can make a complaint and persue it ,it shouldn't be upto a manager to decide for them what they should/should not be offended at

So people can bully with impunity, so long as their victims don't complain?

---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If a company recieves a complaint about someone overhearing a comment of concern, they should be asked who the comment was directed to, and in what sort of manner was the comment made.
Then interview the person who it was directed at, did they hear it? Were they offended by it? Are they being victimised by the person who said it? Or was it friendly banter from a mate?

This is correct and should have happened. In fact it is entirely possible that it did happened and Mr Amor took offense and refused to cooperate, which could have been the real reason for his suspension.

If they were offended, then the person who made the comment should then be disciplined (that could be a quiet word if the victim feels it appropriate or verbal warning), if they believe they are being victimised that should be investigated further and dealt with appropriately.
They should not suspend someone on the hearsay of a 3rd party.

In general terms, this is wrong. It is not incumbent for the recipient of such remarks to prove they are offended or not. It is, however, incumbent upon management to carry out their duties according their policies. A school teacher does not ask a child if he is being bullied, if they are certain bullying is taking place. If the victim is too scared to admit it, the bullying will continue.

---------- Post added at 12:52 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Will21st

Wholly speculative on your part.even if it was bullying it would
be up to the bullied to complain.

As pointed out before, it is not.

---------- Post added at 12:56 ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well that's a managerial decision.
If it's something like one worker saying to another "those bloody muslims coming here spreading islam through rape, they should be rounded up and shot" then yes, understandable how that would cause offence to most people.
A worker talking in a mock west indian voice to a west indian mate, overheard by a caucasian Englishman and reported, then a serious talk with the person reporting it to find out why they found it offensive and why they think anything should be done when the two involved are perfectly happy with what occured would be in order.

But how does one judge whether that person's level of offence is relevant and who is truly qualified to decide? Surely the fact that one person found it offensive should be enough?

---------- Post added at 13:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Well as far as I'm concerned, the busy body who reported him has his blood on there hands.

A truly short-sighted perspective.

My dad and his mate have called each other 'blue' for years, is this racist?

Why on Earth would ever be considered racist?

[nomadking]

What was there for ANYBODY to be offended about?

Even if the comment had been made in a serious manner, it could only be seen as being helpful advice to hide. It's not as if he was calling the immigration officers over to investigate the guy.

There is not a general way in people that are offended can take action. Only members of 'privileged' groups are allowed to have action taken, and most of that is because those groups are told that they should take offence, and not because they are truly offended.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

Hmmm. I'd dispute the 'basically name calling' call here. What destroyed this man was the intervention of a 3rd party who had the power to wreck his life.

As has been said before, that's the one with blood on his hands.

Hardly "wrecking his life." Yes, a workplace suspension is a bit disruptive, humiliating and yes, very disturbing, but hardly life wrecking. The reasons for this man's decision to take his life was unlikely to be based on his relationship with his employer.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But how does one judge whether that person's level of offence is relevant and who is truly qualified to decide? Surely the fact that one person found it offensive should be enough?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the part of my post you quoted.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the part of my post you quoted.

This bit:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well that's a managerial decision.
If it's something like one worker saying to another "those bloody muslims coming here spreading islam through rape, they should be rounded up and shot" then yes, understandable how that would cause offence to most people.
A worker talking in a mock west indian voice to a west indian mate, overheard by a caucasian Englishman and reported, then a serious talk with the person reporting it to find out why they found it offensive and why they think anything should be done when the two involved are perfectly happy with what occured would be in order.

[Pierre]

I'm sick of people being offended. The idea that if you "offend" someone, that some kind of appeasement is neccessary really winds me up.

It's one of our freedoms. If someone is offended that's fine they can be offended.

It's a point of view, what you find offensive I may not, and vice versa.

Unless it is prescribed in law that the "offensive" act is illegal in any way, (which of course is different), Otherwise if anybody says to you "I find that offensive" say "good" and then tell them to F****ff

I hope the person who made this complaint is happy with the outcome.

Perhaps next time they wont stick their nose into something that doesnt concern them.

[Flyboy]

But, as a manager, it did concern him.

[nomadking]

Where does it say that a manager initiated the complaint?