Daisley binned

[Jamie_B]

Care to expand a little?

Not really. It's not my place to put any details in the public domain. Also, I use my own name on here and I'm certain plenty people from STV read this forum (hiya STV Sport, hiya pals!) so I don't really want to drop my source in it!

[Fide]

Just now, Jamie_Beatson said:

Not really. It's not my place to put any details in the public domain. Also, I use my own name on here and I'm certain plenty people from STV read this forum (hiya STV Sport, hiya pals!) so I don't really want to drop my source in it!

So, without dropping buds in it, are the Unionist commentariat talking shite or SNP MPs and their pals?

[Ad Lib]

5 hours ago, Fide said:

You're such a fucking moron, Libbers.  His Twitter clearly stated "STV Digital & Politics Editor". Although, cleverly, thats now been removed.

He ran news stories and wrote news pieces which he linked on said Twitter.

His Twitter was very un-personal, although I see he's now also changed his bio to state "my views do not reflect those of my employer".  Perhaps if he'd done that in the first place, there would have been no issue.

Still, I'm sure you'll keep hammering on, ad absurdum.

Stating your job title on a Twitter account and linking to news articles on it is not the same as it being a work account. He also used to have on his tag line "I am not responsible for your inability to grasp irony". Was that an STV stance too?

[Fide]

1 hour ago, Ad Lib said:

Stating your job title on a Twitter account and linking to news articles on it is not the same as it being a work account. He also used to have on his tag line "I am not responsible for your inability to grasp irony". Was that an STV stance too?

Pedantism ad absurdum.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

20 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

1. Just as well no one actually said that then, isn't it? I merely pointed out how the tactics were different and disanalogous, making whataboutery excuses void.

2. You can't separate the two though. It takes an intimidator to trigger a capitulation. The mere fact that other politicians do it too isn't an excuse. The nature of the complaints here is also completely inappropriate. If Wishart and Nicolson had problems with anything Daisley published on the STV platform (note, their actual complaints didn't even relate to that, but to comments made on his personal Twitter account) they should have complained through formal channels; not by intimidation tactics on Twitter and a nudge and a wink at a breakfast event.

It doesn't matter if it's on their official site or his own Twitter - any good employment lawyer ( and you should know some) will tell you that what you do in your private life can be held against you by your employer.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

7 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

Stating your job title on a Twitter account and linking to news articles on it is not the same as it being a work account. He also used to have on his tag line "I am not responsible for your inability to grasp irony". Was that an STV stance too?

Do you want me to explain the concept of bringing your employer in to disrepute?

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

It doesn't matter if it's on their official site or his own Twitter - any good employment lawyer ( and you should know some) will tell you that what you do in your private life can be held against you by your employer.

It shouldn't be able to except where it directly prevents you from doing your job.

Nothing Daisley has said on Twitter even comes close to that.

[Ad Lib]

4 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Do you want me to explain the concept of bringing your employer in to disrepute?

Personal opinions expressed publicly about issues not relating specifically to your employer should not be capable of that.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

3 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Personal opinions expressed publicly about issues not relating specifically to your employer should not be capable of that.

Oh they can - trust me.

[Ad Lib]

Just now, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Oh they can - trust me.

I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying they shouldn't. That we should not, as a society, recognise personal political comments, in and of themselves, of being capable of bringing an employer into disrepute.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Just now, Ad Lib said:

I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying they shouldn't. That we should not, as a society, recognise personal political comments, in and of themselves, of being capable of bringing an employer into disrepute.

Unfortunately the vast majority of employers don't see it that way.

They will regard you as an employee as being the public face of the organisation - hence anything you do that they see as negative they will argue as painting the business in a bad light.

Some industries are worse than others - I just happen to be in one where the smallest of indiscretion can see you hauled up in front of the GTCS.

I know one guy who basically was told he was in last chance saloon - his crime? He was convicted of dangerous driving which should have had the square root of f**k all to do with his job.

[Ad Lib]

3 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Unfortunately the vast majority of employers don't see it that way.

They will regard you as an employee as being the public face of the organisation - hence anything you do that they see as negative they will argue as painting the business in a bad light.

Some industries are worse than others - I just happen to be in one where the smallest of indiscretion can see you hauled up in front of the GTCS.

I know one guy who basically was told he was in last chance saloon - his crime? He was convicted of dangerous driving which should have had the square root of f**k all to do with his job.

The vast majority of employers are wrong.

What happened to you man? I thought you were all about the worker against the bossman?

[strichener]

16 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying they shouldn't. That we should not, as a society, recognise personal political comments, in and of themselves, of being capable of bringing an employer into disrepute.

I am sure that will be a good defence to deploy - "I saw it on a forum where someone said you shouldn't hold it against me"

Can see many employers changing their social media policies on the back of that.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

8 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

The vast majority of employers are wrong.

What happened to you man? I thought you were all about the worker against the bossman?

Still doesn't prevent me knowing what employer rights are.

As it stands they were perfectly entitled to sack him whether I agree (or not) with the reasons 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

3 minutes ago, strichener said:

I am sure that will be a good defence to deploy - "I saw it on a forum where someone said you shouldn't hold it against me"

Can see many employers changing their social media policies on the back of that.

Social media is the first thing any employer checks when recruiting these days. 

 

[Ad Lib]

Unless someone is required to be able to drive as part of their job, a driving disqualification should not be grounds for dismissal.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Just now, Ad Lib said:

Unless someone is required to be able to drive as part of their job, a driving disqualification should not be grounds for dismissal.

You misunderstand - was referring to Daisley's sacking.  My mate got off with a warning from the GTCS - had it he not it effectively would have been a sacking.

[Ad Lib]

Just now, DeeTillEhDeh said:

You misunderstand - was referring to Daisley's sacking.  My mate got off with a warning from the GTCS - had it he not it effectively would have been a sacking.

Daisley wasn't sacked.

[WaffenThinMint]

23 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Do you want me to explain the concept of bringing your employer in to disrepute?

 

18 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Personal opinions expressed publicly about issues not relating specifically to your employer should not be capable of that.

 

14 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Oh they can - trust me.

Stunning naivity from Graeme Cowie once again.

That evil old b*****d Richard Edmonds (National Front directorate member in the 1970s, deputy to the late unlamented John Tyndall in the BNP through the 1980s and 1990s) almost managed to make a living out of being fired by employers when Searchlight or other "anti-fascist" groups campaigned to have him sacked (first as a schoolteacher in Tulse Hill, later as an employee of Cable & Wireless) for his far-right activities, getting a generous settlement with a gag clause to get rid of him (and the unwanted publicity he brought) every time. If I remember correctly, he even got to keep his pension rights as part of the deals.

It was partly down to Edmonds antics that the laws were changed so employers could have a clause in their contracts forbidding employees from taking part in certain political activities such as standing for election if they chose as part of the contract of employment.

 

[Ad Lib]

3 minutes ago, WaffenThinMint said:

 

 

Stunning naivity from Graeme Cowie once again.

That evil old b*****d Richard Edmonds (National Front directorate member in the 1970s, deputy to the late unlamented John Tyndall in the BNP through the 1980s and 1990s) almost managed to make a living out of being fired by employers when Searchlight or other "anti-fascist" groups campaigned to have him sacked (first as a schoolteacher in Tulse Hill, later as an employee of Cable & Wireless) for his far-right activities, getting a generous settlement with a gag clause to get rid of him (and the unwanted publicity he brought) every time. If I remember correctly, he even got to keep his pension rights as part of the deals.

It was partly down to Edmonds antics that the laws were changed so employers could have a clause in their contracts forbidding employees from taking part in certain political activities such as standing for election if they chose as part of the contract of employment.

 

There is a difference between prohibiting political activities and curtailing free expression. Similarly there are obvious reasons in the context of a teacher to impose restrictions on conduct that would undermine the confidence of a Head Teacher as to their ability to discharge their duties as a teacher in compliance with the Equality Act, without discriminating against pupils on the basis of sexuality, race, ethnicity, gender or disability.

Nothing Stephen Daisley has said or done is even remotely relevant to those scenarios.