ChatterBank12 mins ago
Did he really deserve all this?
42 Answers
http://www.dailymail....er-cost-job-home.html
This sad and pitiful case rears it's ugly head once again.
But this time we hear the story from the accused point of view, but more important we are told exactly what this woman was offended by.
It seems that it was because she assumed that she was somehow shunned in conversation etc.
Well perhaps so, but she should have accepted that things would not be the same for her. Yes she had entered a domain that until she arrived had inclusively been a male one, since its introduction 100s of years ago. Things were not going to be the same, special accommodation and facilities had to be provided, since she was the lone female in an otherwise male environment.
But having said all this and even if this Beefeater had been more horrible towards her, he did not deserve to loose his job, and his, his wife's and children's accommodation, all in the name of "Political Correctness".After all he had not committed a major crime, nor had he conducted physical abuse against this woman.
In the real outside world, the most he could have expected was to be dragged onto the carpet, with a sound verbal warning, and a slapped wrist, for his misdemeanour's
This sad and pitiful case rears it's ugly head once again.
But this time we hear the story from the accused point of view, but more important we are told exactly what this woman was offended by.
It seems that it was because she assumed that she was somehow shunned in conversation etc.
Well perhaps so, but she should have accepted that things would not be the same for her. Yes she had entered a domain that until she arrived had inclusively been a male one, since its introduction 100s of years ago. Things were not going to be the same, special accommodation and facilities had to be provided, since she was the lone female in an otherwise male environment.
But having said all this and even if this Beefeater had been more horrible towards her, he did not deserve to loose his job, and his, his wife's and children's accommodation, all in the name of "Political Correctness".After all he had not committed a major crime, nor had he conducted physical abuse against this woman.
In the real outside world, the most he could have expected was to be dragged onto the carpet, with a sound verbal warning, and a slapped wrist, for his misdemeanour's
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Probably preferable to a guardian of the monarch's treasures being so toweringly thick he spends his time bullying a woman because he can't get his tiny mind around the concept of a female beefeater. A man so dribblingly stupid he'd casually jeopardise his job (and family's welfare) by singling out a woman for sustained and belittling abuse.
I'd love to see him explain thaat to his wife when she says: "So... when I thought you were at work bravely defending Her Majesty's property, you were acting like an 8 year old and thinking up ways to pick on the new girl? My hero."
I'd love to see him explain thaat to his wife when she says: "So... when I thought you were at work bravely defending Her Majesty's property, you were acting like an 8 year old and thinking up ways to pick on the new girl? My hero."
Answer your hypothetical question regarding a black Beefeater?
Well, I suspect with odious creeps like Sanders-Crook at the Tower, the likelihood of any black or Asian applying for a position there is very slim. However, this case involved a black man bullying a woman out of her position, he would be treated exactly the same.
Why would you think any differently?
Are you suggesting that whites can ever be accused of bullying?
Why would you say that?
Well, I suspect with odious creeps like Sanders-Crook at the Tower, the likelihood of any black or Asian applying for a position there is very slim. However, this case involved a black man bullying a woman out of her position, he would be treated exactly the same.
Why would you think any differently?
Are you suggesting that whites can ever be accused of bullying?
Why would you say that?
Or, AOG, you could accept/assume that each different case will be judged on its merits?
But you won't. What you'll actually do is ignore any differences in the two cases, and if the woman isn't sacked, you'll claim it shows double standards - because you're not intellectually capable of understanding that specific differences will exist between this case and the beefeater case. Not just obvious point-and-look differences like one being of a different race or gender.
Someone should also sit you down with a cup of tea and nice biscuit and explain to you that a court/tribunal is presented with reams of evidence whereas a newspaper report contains only the headline evidence, so basing your judgement on a short article in a daily newspaper is a little bit silly.
But you won't. What you'll actually do is ignore any differences in the two cases, and if the woman isn't sacked, you'll claim it shows double standards - because you're not intellectually capable of understanding that specific differences will exist between this case and the beefeater case. Not just obvious point-and-look differences like one being of a different race or gender.
Someone should also sit you down with a cup of tea and nice biscuit and explain to you that a court/tribunal is presented with reams of evidence whereas a newspaper report contains only the headline evidence, so basing your judgement on a short article in a daily newspaper is a little bit silly.
you seem surprised at the disciplinary committee's conclusions. But then, they had the slight advantage of hearing all the evidence from both sides, which you haven't.
You also draw attention to the fact that the Tower has, oh lordy, a spokesWOMAN. Mr Sanders-Crook may also feel the terrible injustice of this. But maybe after leading Jack the Ripper tours in his spare time, he has inadvertently come to share Mr Ripper's opinion of women.
You also draw attention to the fact that the Tower has, oh lordy, a spokesWOMAN. Mr Sanders-Crook may also feel the terrible injustice of this. But maybe after leading Jack the Ripper tours in his spare time, he has inadvertently come to share Mr Ripper's opinion of women.
Quinlad
/// Someone should also sit you down with a cup of tea and nice biscuit and explain to you that a court/tribunal is presented with reams of evidence whereas a newspaper report contains only the headline evidence, so basing your judgement on a short article in a daily newspaper is a little bit silly.///
jno
/// you seem surprised at the disciplinary committee's conclusions. But then, they had the slight advantage of hearing all the evidence from both sides, which you haven't.///
You staunch defenders of British justice, soon turn about in fury when they make decisions that don't fit in with your criteria.
Taken your logic, perhaps no one should believe or comment on anything one's reads in newspapers etc, and the only ones who should be allowed to comment, are those who have read the full transcript of the courts/tribunals
I will bear this in mind when you two next criticise a report, unless of course you can prove you are in possession of all the facts..
/// Someone should also sit you down with a cup of tea and nice biscuit and explain to you that a court/tribunal is presented with reams of evidence whereas a newspaper report contains only the headline evidence, so basing your judgement on a short article in a daily newspaper is a little bit silly.///
jno
/// you seem surprised at the disciplinary committee's conclusions. But then, they had the slight advantage of hearing all the evidence from both sides, which you haven't.///
You staunch defenders of British justice, soon turn about in fury when they make decisions that don't fit in with your criteria.
Taken your logic, perhaps no one should believe or comment on anything one's reads in newspapers etc, and the only ones who should be allowed to comment, are those who have read the full transcript of the courts/tribunals
I will bear this in mind when you two next criticise a report, unless of course you can prove you are in possession of all the facts..
sp1814
/// How can she be sacked?///
/// It's HER company...! ///
Quieten down, no need to shout, I was referring to her Labour P.C appointment. (what ever happened to Harriot Harperson?)
/// Glenda Stone, 43, was hired by Labour minister Margaret Hodge to head the Task Force For Women’s Enterprise – aimed at encouraging so-called “mumpreneurs”.///
Please try and keep up.
/// How can she be sacked?///
/// It's HER company...! ///
Quieten down, no need to shout, I was referring to her Labour P.C appointment. (what ever happened to Harriot Harperson?)
/// Glenda Stone, 43, was hired by Labour minister Margaret Hodge to head the Task Force For Women’s Enterprise – aimed at encouraging so-called “mumpreneurs”.///
Please try and keep up.
Quinlad
/// I'm not sure I've ever criticised a court judgement on this site, AOG.///
Who said anything about you criticising a court judgement?
This is what I said,
"I will bear this in mind when you two next criticise a report",
Perhaps I should have made it more clearer fo you?
"I will bear this in mind when you two next criticise a newspaper report, unless it is taken from a bona fide court judgement "
/// I'm not sure I've ever criticised a court judgement on this site, AOG.///
Who said anything about you criticising a court judgement?
This is what I said,
"I will bear this in mind when you two next criticise a report",
Perhaps I should have made it more clearer fo you?
"I will bear this in mind when you two next criticise a newspaper report, unless it is taken from a bona fide court judgement "
Yep.
That proved it.
Anyway, back to whether Dr Glenda Stone should be sacked from her position as head of the Task Force For Women’s Enterprise...no...and yes.
How she chooses to run her business and treat subordinates is no reflection on her capacity as the co-Chair of a Government quango. Therefore she should stay.
However, if the court finds against her, the embarrassment this case will cause is justification for her to go. But if you read the report in the paper, there's no suggestion that she carried out a systematic campaign against specific members of staff. She's just got a rather questionable management style.
There's a world of difference between the two stories.
That proved it.
Anyway, back to whether Dr Glenda Stone should be sacked from her position as head of the Task Force For Women’s Enterprise...no...and yes.
How she chooses to run her business and treat subordinates is no reflection on her capacity as the co-Chair of a Government quango. Therefore she should stay.
However, if the court finds against her, the embarrassment this case will cause is justification for her to go. But if you read the report in the paper, there's no suggestion that she carried out a systematic campaign against specific members of staff. She's just got a rather questionable management style.
There's a world of difference between the two stories.
-- answer removed --
The race issue is relevent. But then, it's the same with any story. If various individuals were attacked physically, (gay man, black man, disabled woman, 10 year old girl, 80 year old woman, 40 year old banker, ugly man, Susan Boyle) people would react in a different way according to each individual. Who would have sympathy for the ugly man.
Personally I think all beefeaters of all creed and colour, should take a long rest, like the dinosaurs and stop wasting tax payers money.
Personally I think all beefeaters of all creed and colour, should take a long rest, like the dinosaurs and stop wasting tax payers money.
-- answer removed --
LucyThomas7
Yes. I think it's marvellous that this man has been shown up, and lost his job. For years, women have been forced to put up with that kind of nonsense from inadequate men. But it's 2009, not 1979 - and if you're a man who (for whatever reason) finds it difficult dealing with women at work, then it is you who will suffer the consequences, rather than the woman in question.
His sacking should be seen as a warning. Treat women with the equal degree of respect that you treat men, otherwise it could be YOUR family enjoying Christmas in a hostel in Dalson.
Yes. I think it's marvellous that this man has been shown up, and lost his job. For years, women have been forced to put up with that kind of nonsense from inadequate men. But it's 2009, not 1979 - and if you're a man who (for whatever reason) finds it difficult dealing with women at work, then it is you who will suffer the consequences, rather than the woman in question.
His sacking should be seen as a warning. Treat women with the equal degree of respect that you treat men, otherwise it could be YOUR family enjoying Christmas in a hostel in Dalson.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles51 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics51 mins ago
ChatterBank56 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles57 mins ago