Eric Bristow

[grrclark]

Let's be very clear, i don't believe that anybody is defending Bristow. His comments are insensitive and ignorant at best and grossly offensive to some at worse. He has confirmed what many have long suspected in that the guy is a knob of the highest order.

 

There is a real danger though that people are conflating arguments, by challenging the sinister and insidious movement toward censure of an individual for having an unpalatable opinion neither condones what Bristow has said or defends him in any way.

 

An opinion shared on PW is as equally public as one shared on Twitter. Bristow having a wider audience to his comment than that of PW cannot somehow be taken as justification for a more extreme censure.

 

By way of example if i assaulted someone in front of 2 witnesses and got a month in jail should I expect a more severe punishment if I carry out the same assault in front of an audience of 10,000 people?

 

What is being argued is that Bristow's offensive comment are of such a level of offense he should lose an entirely unrelated job. Who decides what the offence scale is, when does the level of offensiveness become such that he should be sacked? Who decides what that measure is?

 

Shaun, to answer your question yes I absolutely do believe that many will share his opinion. That may be sad and bewildering to a reasonable person, but there will be tens if not hundreds of thousands of men who will be thinking that Bristow was right, why don't those men who were abused when children not beat the guy up now that they are adults.

 

That is what Bristow said, in essence he questioned why those men didn't see fit to take revenge on the guy when they were physically capable.

 

I think that very many people will think like that. Consider how many people will pipe up with a comment similar to 'if I was in that position i would have ended up on an assault charge....' when a conversation comes around to being a victim.

 

I am not condoning, excusing or defending Bristow, i think his comments show extreme ignorance, but I absolutely do find it sinister how we have this creeping march toward arbitrarily dispensing 'justice' based on something that is entirely subjective.

 

Case in point is trying to have a challenging debate around that, a philosophical, moral and ethical debate even, and the vast majority of response is based on emotional content.

[Gordon R]

What is being argued is that Bristow's offensive comment are of such a level of offense he should lose an entirely unrelated job. Who decides what the offence scale is, when does the level of offensiveness become such that he should be sacked? Who decides what that measure is?

 

 

Tyson Fury - people wanted him banned from boxing for his religious beliefs.

 

Ched Evans - people wanted to ban him from football, for a non-footballing matter - although he was subsequently cleared.

 

Bristow knew or should have known the impact in the current climate. He should just have kept his mouth shut. He couldn't manage that one thing.

 

PS - the level of offense was decided by Sky and Newcastle United.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Gordon R

[grrclark]

Gordon I don't disagree with you, Bristow should not have made the comments that he did and that is a simple fact.

 

What is clear however is that he didn't appreciate what the reaction would be because he is obviously ignorant to how others would perceive what he said. That in short is the root of my argument, should an obviously ignorant comment be punished by a man losing his job that is in no way related to what his comment was about?

 

Sure there is likely a clause in his contract that talks about not bringing his employer into disrepute and that may govern what is said on social media in a private capacity, that will be one for the employment lawyers to argue.

 

Let's have a bit of conjecture for a minute that he was a postman, his public persona is still the same given his success as a professional darts player, his audience is still the same, would it be reasonable to be sacked from a postman's job?

 

If we contend that it is reasonable for an ignorant public comment be such that he should lose his job then we must also contend that everyone has to face the same level of censure. Any of us making an ignorant comment on here that enough may deem as being so offensive then any of us should expect to be sacked in addition to being banned from PW.

 

His public profile does not make his 'crime' or indiscretion any more significant than any of us making a similar remark. As LS asked earlier, where is the line, what is the threshold?

 

This forum is not closed to members only, it is free text searchable by anybody on the internet.

 

Let's say a PW post went viral for the nature of the content and had an audience akin to Bristow's level of Twitter followers, would that then justify someone being sacked from their unrelated job because it has a wider audience? The comment is a personal opinion by an individual, not work related at all, would an employer have a right to dismiss someone in that example?

 

I don't defend Bristow at all, but when we have a clamour for summary justice on the basis of something entirely subjective and so arbitrarily defined then it worries me greatly.

 

We each set our own boundaries or limits of acceptability based on our own values and we each have different experiences in how those values are developed, but what makes any one of us right? Is it by popular consensus? Is it by the gravitas or emotional weight of the subject matter?

 

There was a petition of hundreds of thousands who called for Donald Trump to be banned from the UK because of him voicing strong opinion on Mexican migrants to the US, those signatories decided that he crossed the boundary of their threshold of acceptability and demanded censure. What gives them the right to decide that they are right, that their values toward free speech was more correct, more appropriate than Trump's and indeed more appropriate than the tens of millions who voted for him?

 

This is a difficult and challenging debate because of the subject matter, there is a huge amount of emotion attached to such a sensitive subject, but that cannot be reason to not have the debate. It is of course a philosophical debate. Of course it needn't be a PW debate, our little collective of contributors are not going to change anything, but lets consider that we are a micro scale representation of the wider debate amongst the populace. If we in PW seek to censor or deny a discussion because of emotional sensitivity then that is simply a mirror of what is happening on the bigger stage.

 

Lots to think about.

[Mungler]

I take the point it's where the line is drawn (and arguable who determines where that line is drawn) but this is wandering into whether the line should ever be drawn (which is too idealistic and impractical).

 

What if Bristow pops up as a flat earther, a holicaust denier and a nazi sympathiser etc.

 

He's still a great darts player so should he be allowed to crack on with his commentating jobs?

 

These are views that anyone is welcome to under freedom of speech but simple brand protection and common sense draws the line, not a liberal conspiracy in the BBC.

 

I actually agree that there is a liberal conspiracy in the BBC; everyone who works there comes from left of centre and reads the Guardian and so it's going to happen. A better example of that liberal conspiracy was the death of Top Gear (on the BBC anyway).

[Flashman]

How the mighty have fallen:

 

“When Alexander of Macedonia was 33, he cried salt tears because there were no more worlds to conquer..... Bristow's only 27.”

 

Sid Waddell

[Blackpowder]

Well. He has certainly got a bit publicity on here if nothing else.

 

Blackpowder

[Gordon R]

grrclark - I respect your views, but I honestly believe that Bristow knew what the reaction would be. If he didn't he is stupid and should pay the penalty for his stupidity alone.

 

The same argument about offence / job cropped up regularly with Ched Evans. Bristow must have been aware of that, but still went ahead. Stupidity or arrogance - take your pick.

[LondonLuke]

I think he deserved to lose his contracts, part and parcel of being publicly known is watching what you say/endorse/promote/engage in.

 

No different to the Andy Gray saga for me.

 

People in the normal working world lose their jobs in similar fashion - look at the guy who got binned from Blackrock for dodging rail fares.

[grrclark]

grrclark - I respect your views, but I honestly believe that Bristow knew what the reaction would be. If he didn't he is stupid and should pay the penalty for his stupidity alone.

 

The same argument about offence / job cropped up regularly with Ched Evans. Bristow must have been aware of that, but still went ahead. Stupidity or arrogance - take your pick.

Both stupidity and arrogane Gordon i think. Without a doubt he was courting controversy.

 

The Ched Evans case is very similar in many respects and also worthy of a good discussion.

 

Mungler, I'm not arguing that a line shouldn't be drawn, but what makes it right in this case that he should be sacked?

 

Is it the subject matter or is it his public profile?

I think he deserved to lose his contracts, part and parcel of being publicly known is watching what you say/endorse/promote/engage in.

 

No different to the Andy Gray saga for me.

 

People in the normal working world lose their jobs in similar fashion - look at the guy who got binned from Blackrock for dodging rail fares.

Fair enough that you think he should be binned.

 

Is it because of the subject matter or because of his profile?

 

The guy who got sacked for dodging rail fares comitted a criminal offence, that an easy line to draw.

[LondonLuke]

Fair enough that you think he should be binned.

 

Is it because of the subject matter or because of his profile?

 

The guy who got sacked for dodging rail fares comitted a criminal offence, that an easy line to draw.

 

 

For me, probably a combination of both. I think if you are in a high profile position where people "look up to you" or your opinion carries gravitas then you should be considerate of the views you hold that you make public.

 

In the same way that were one of my team to be making a racist/misogynist/etc view publicly and I felt it would reflect badly on us a business then would I look to terminate his contract?

 

With regards to the rail fare dodger - there are many many people working in jobs who have a criminal record - why should he not be one of them?

Edited December 1, 2016 by LondonLuke

[AVB]

 

With regards to the rail fare dodger - there are many many people working in jobs who have a criminal record - why should he not be one of them?

Because he was registered with the FInancial Conduct Authority (FCA) and having a criminal record for fraud meant he failed their 'fit and proper' test. And quite right too.

 

That is different to having an opinion.

Edited December 1, 2016 by AVB

[LondonLuke]

Because he was registered with the FInancial Conduct Authority (FCA) and having a criminal record for fraud meant he failed their 'fit and proper' test. And quite right too.

 

That is different to having an opinion.

 

 

Ah didnt realise - perhaps I should have gone with the doctor that got caught supplying drugs and kept his job, or the doctor who was allowed to practice after sexual assault due to being a good doctor.

[grrclark]

 

 

For me, probably a combination of both. I think if you are in a high profile position where people "look up to you" or your opinion carries gravitas then you should be considerate of the views you hold that you make public.

 

In the same way that were one of my team to be making a racist/misogynist/etc view publicly and I felt it would reflect badly on us a business then would I look to terminate his contract?

 

With regards to the rail fare dodger - there are many many people working in jobs who have a criminal record - why should he not be one of them?

AVB answered your question on the fare dodger so I wont repeat that same thing.

 

So if we take your position of a combination of both then we deny those in a more public facing role the right to express an individual held opinion, that opinion may be crassly ignorant, but we should deny them that?

 

Let's combine bith elements, in the post Jimmy Saville era there was a witch hunt against a number of 'celebrities' or ublic personalities with allegations of historical child abuse.

 

For the sake of this point lets use Leon Brittain as our example.

 

Should any of his previous colleagues or peers who were also public facing personalities be denied from speaking out in his defence?

 

In essence thise who defended him were calling the person who made the allegations a liar (incidentally something that is now being openly asserted). They were openly challenging a victim of child abuse.

 

Same subject matter and arguably a greater public profile than Bristow. Should they have been sacked or should they have been barred from speaking out?

 

Just to be clear I do understand where you are coming from and i'm not being dismissive of your opinions or anybody elses on this thread. Just looking beyond the immediate emotional knee jerk reaction.

[LondonLuke]

AVB answered your question on the fare dodger so I wont repeat that same thing.

 

So if we take your position of a combination of both then we deny those in a more public facing role the right to express an individual held opinion, that opinion may be crassly ignorant, but we should deny them that?

 

Let's combine bith elements, in the post Jimmy Saville era there was a witch hunt against a number of 'celebrities' or ublic personalities with allegations of historical child abuse.

 

For the sake of this point lets use Leon Brittain as our example.

 

Should any of his previous colleagues or peers who were also public facing personalities be denied from speaking out in his defence?

 

In essence thise who defended him were calling the person who made the allegations a liar (incidentally something that is now being openly asserted). They were openly challenging a victim of child abuse.

 

Same subject matter and arguably a greater public profile than Bristow. Should they have been sacked or should they have been barred from speaking out?

 

Just to be clear I do understand where you are coming from and i'm not being dismissive of your opinions or anybody elses on this thread. Just looking beyond the immediate emotional knee jerk reaction.

 

 

For me they are two different arguments.

 

I didn't follow the Brittain case as closely but my understanding is that the peers and colleagues of Leon Brittain were speaking out and were claiming him to be innocent - they were not making an attack on the people making the claims (it could be argued indirectly perhaps)

 

Bristow's comments were made after the coach had been charged (admittedly not convicted), and were directly "mocking" the victims of the crime and directly accused them of being weak - Bristow was not claiming the coach to be innocent, but was more making an attack on the victims.

 

I do personally feel that were a celebrity (or other) make a claim that the Saville victims were weak or should have sought revenge then this would be the equivalent argument

 

Do I feel it right/fair that a celebrity should be free to mock child abuse victims publicly on twitter - no.

 

Do I feel it right/fair that a non celebrity should be free to mock child abuse victims in the pub to their mates - no.

 

The difference is when the wrong person hears/sees the comments the celebrity loses their job, the person in the pub gets beaten up. Either way its their publicly held reputation that suffers.

Edited December 1, 2016 by LondonLuke

[grrclark]

so the subject matter is not the issue, it is the intention?

 

Bristow's statement was that he could not understand how childhood victims didn't exact revenge as an adult and then went on to mock football players.

 

Indirectly of course he is being an idiot and could reasonably be construed to be mocking an abuse victim, but equally in Leon Brittain's case his supporters were accusing the victim of lying.

 

Should you or I make a similar comment to Bristow on here should we be sacked?

[LondonLuke]

I think were I (as a company owner) to put something offensive on here, or Facebook, or anywhere public - which was subsequently seen by a client who found it offensive, then I couldn't complain at losing their custom.

 

Similarly were I to see a member post something on here that was openly racist/sexist/etc would I still order products from them - no.

 

I think you live and die on your reputation and your public persona and you can't expect people to not draw conclusions on this.

 

As a forum we have loads of members, most of whom I have never met, but I still have a rough idea on who I would and wouldn't want to have a beer with based solely on their posts on here.

Edited December 1, 2016 by LondonLuke

[grrclark]

I think were I (as a company owner) to put something offensive on here, or Facebook, or anywhere public - which was subsequently seen by a client who found it offensive, then I couldn't complain at losing their custom.

 

Similarly were I to see a member post something on here that was openly racist/sexist/etc would I still order products from them - no.

 

I think you live and die on your reputation and your public persona and you can't expect people to not draw conclusions on this.

 

As a forum we have loads of members, most of whom I have never met, but I still have a rough idea on who I would and wouldn't want to have a beer with based solely on their posts on here.

That's all entirely fair Luke and I agree, but I would suggest that you and I tend to set a much higher threshold of acceptability for ourselves. The nature of any posts on here establish that.

 

What we are talking about is subjective though and that is the premise of my argument.

 

Some people will choose not to buy product because of how or where it is sourced, so using child labour as an example, but plenty will buy the same product if it is cheap.

 

Lots of people will choose to dismiss Bristow for what he is, an ill educated and ignorant knob, but plenty will agree with his point of why didn't the fit and healthy adult not beat 7 bells out of the abusive coach.

 

Back to my point who or what decides where the line is?

 

My contention is that we collectively are becoming far too eager and keen to not challenge for fear of being thought to speak out of turn. By that I don't mean Bristow's comments, I mean a lack of willingness for people to really consider what the implications of the actions taken against Bristow mean.

 

He has not committed a crime, he voiced an opinion, albeit an ingnorant one.

[Gordon R]

Bristow is high profile - he makes his living on his past achievements and reputation. When he, as opposed to non-famous people, make silly pronouncements, they have further to fall.

 

Happy enough to take the money that fame brings, but now regretting his actions.

 

grrclark - I agree insofar as this is a recent issue - do something silly - lose job unconnected with the matter - but these are the times we live in.

[shaun4860]

Lots of people will choose to dismiss Bristow for what he is, an ill educated and ignorant knob, but plenty will agree with his point of why didn't the fit and healthy adult not beat 7 bells out of the abusive coach.

 

 

Am I missing something here (genuine question)

 

Does Bristow think that these were adults that were being abused?

 

I'm under the impression they were all children?

 

Or is he saying that when they grew up they should have then beat the 7 bells out of him?

 

On one of the victims I saw on the telly, the abuser told the boy that he wouldn't tell the boys parents what the boy did TO HIM.......

 

I've not heard of any abused person on any of the abuse stories over the years beating 7 bells out of their abuser ( It may have happened?)....... It's a fear and embarrassment thing, and worse case scenario he kills the abuser, he then goes down for murder because there is now no evidence of the abuse

 

The abusers get away with it because they instill fear and the fact that it's the abused persons fault

 

[grrclark]

Shaun, he was suggesting that as adults they should have beaten up their childhood abuser.

 

His reasoning being that would have put a stop to his actions.

 

Of course he has no consideration for any mental trauma that these men endured as children, or any cognisance of how they feel, he is speaking purely from a position of ignorance. There is no defence of what he said, but without any doubt it will be an opinion that is shared by many who embrace a macho type approach.

[Gordon R]

Had they done what Bristow suggested, they could have ruined the rest of their own and families' lives. Ten years later - beat up the abuser - get caught - abuser denies any wrongdoing. At worst they might end up inside.

 

I sincerely hope Bristow's view isn't shared by many "macho types".

[Scully]

Shaun, he was suggesting that as adults they should have beaten up their childhood abuser.

 

His reasoning being that would have put a stop to his actions.

 

Of course he has no consideration for any mental trauma that these men endured as children, or any cognisance of how they feel, he is speaking purely from a position of ignorance. There is no defence of what he said, but without any doubt it will be an opinion that is shared by many who embrace a macho type approach.

 

Yep; this topic has been discussed at work, and there are one or two who agree with Bristow. I hasten to add they aren't condoning what he said, but there are many in favour of 'catch up' or 'revenge'.

My main bugbear with Bristow was his reference to the the alleged perpetrator as a 'puff', and thereby linking homosexuality with pedophilia. One doesn't necessarily follow the other. Pure ignorance and possibly ( more than likely in my opinion ) the product of a generational and social indoctrination. You can't educate anyone if what they say is stifled from the outset.

My other concern is for the mental anguish of the parents of these victims, and especially the fathers, who may have at sometime urged their sons to 'listen to your coach son, and do everything he tells you'. Imagine how they must be feeling.

[AVB]

A lot of companies now trawl through social media to get background information on prospective employees. People should be very cautious about what they post.

[grrclark]

Gordon, you're right of course, but you have enough experience of life to know that there are lots of people like that. There is no shortage of stupidity.

 

Scully, I whole heartedly agree.

 

AVB, yep so many are neglectful of the consequence of social media.

[bostonmick]

it strikes me as a little strange. that we have four pages condemning a silly man for making a foolish statement yet not one thread or a single line condemning those despicable people who carried out these vile acts against children.