Did This Bit Of Harmless Banter Deserve A £5,000 Fine, Along With Accusations Of Sexism?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/631868/Cricket-Chris-Gayle-5000-fine-TV-presenter-live-TV

[anotheoldgit]

If he has the reputation that he is supposed to have, then why did she agree to interview him?

There is a great deal more 'banter' than jokingly asking a pretty woman out for a drink, that takes place on some TV chat shows.

[woofgang]

because she works as a sports journalist on TV and doesn’t get to choose who she interviews. Do keep up AOG!

[woofgang]

Orderlimit, he wasn’t fined by the legal system but by the club he works for and by their governing body. If a person was representing his/her employer and professional body and harassed a police officer in the UK in the same way, it would be absolutely right for the employer and or professional body to operate sanctions against the individual.

[-Talbot-]

anotheoldgit
If he has the reputation that he is supposed to have, then why did she agree to interview him?


Good point AOG ... Why on earth did this woman agree to do her job?

[anotheoldgit]

woofgang

/// because she works as a sports journalist on TV and doesn’t get to choose who she interviews. Do keep up AOG! ///

That reminds me of the Nuremberg Trial's excuses.

" I was only obeying orders".

And there is no need to be so rude.

[-Talbot-]

As someone once said to me


No comparison, AOG.

[jim360]

"And there is no need to be so rude" -- says the man who has just compared a woman conducting an interview to mass murderers.

[Fitzer]

And there we have it, performing a legal and non-harming task has been likened unto the Final Solution.

[anotheoldgit]

-Talbot-

/// Good point AOG ... Why on earth did this woman agree to do her job? ///

One is free to refuse to carry out something that against one's principles, even if is part of one's job.

For example, if Jimmy Savile was still alive and I was journalist, I would certainly refuse to interview him.

[anotheoldgit]

jim360

/// "And there is no need to be so rude" -- says the man who has just compared a woman conducting an interview to mass murderers. ///

Get real I was not comparing mass murders with this women.

I was simply highlighting the fact that no one with a mind of their own is forced to do anything.

ie this woman was not forced to interview this cricketer, knowing of his past actions, she could have refused, but then that would have cost her money, wouldn't it.

What price principles then?

[ummmm]

Cost her money or her job!

[anotheoldgit]

Fitzer

/// And there we have it, performing a legal and non-harming task ///

"No harming task"????????????

Have you been reading this thread?

Apparently this woman interviewer has been "HARMED"

[ummmm]

When I worked in the pub I didn't have an option to refuse to serve someone because I didn't like them!

[ummmm]

AOG - It wasn't her that complained!

[Mamyalynne]

//Apparently this woman interviewer has been "HARMED"//


No she hasn't, she will get over it - however he has been a (insert word of choice here) once again and has been sanctioned for it.

[jim360]

I guess Chris Gayle is just a predatory man who can't help his nature and isn't in control of what he does, so it is everyone else's responsibility to steer clear of him.

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// Cost her money or her job! ///

What the hell!!

I repeat "what price principles".

Thinking about it, it would have made a much better story, and the lady in question would have come out of it all in a much better light.

"Sports interviewer loses her job because she refused to interview 'lecherous' cricket star"

[ummmm]

You're just being silly now, AOG.

[Fitzer]

AOG, yes I have, the legal and non-harming task to which I referred was her interviewing a sports professional and how such a task could not, should not be in any way be compared to a defendant at Nuremberg claiming that obeying orders to perform harming and illegal acts was a defense.

[-Talbot-]

Sometimes there comes a time in a thread when you know it is a waste of time trying to reason with a poster.

I think that time is when you post something deliberately ludicrous as a joke and the poster with an opposing opinion posts something equally as ludicrous but not as a joke.