Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In the current circumstances, really? I have not seen my mother, who is in a nursing home, for over 2 months, I get that and comply. I could not take my friend, who cannot drive, shopping  e

I am delighted to announce that I will be returning to Manx Radio’s Late Show on Wednesday 1st July. This follows a three week suspension after complaints were lodged against me for comments made

Information Notice.pdf Not sure if the PDF link will work, but this is the official word. To everyone on here who has supported me, thank you sincerely. To my many detractors, have a nice day.

Posted Images

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

Mainly, I agree. But there is sometimes an insensitivity caused by thoughtlessness in Manx institutions. 

Ive experienced it historically, and recently, personally and in respect of clients.

For years I received invites to government functions addressed to, and solely inviting, me, not me + 1. Other advocates got the + 1.

It took some time when I went back on rota as police duty advocate to get a dropped kerb installed so I could access the custody block. Mr Flint was responsible for the new custody bock commissioning. It just wasn’t specified or thought of.

A while ago I was called out to attend a detained person who was transitioning. The custody sergeant got the personal pronouns wrong all the way through.

There have been many cases I have acted in or seen reported where offences have had an aggravating factor based on race, religion, nationality, colour, sexuality, or disability.

Stu Peters and the MR staff all should have been booked on a course about appropriate language and attitudes. It’s not indoctrination, it’s not brainwashing. It’s courteous, it’s polite, it’s what we should expect from a supposedly professional national broadcaster. MR should have done that on their own initiative. 

Its not racist per se not to have done so, but it indicates an “I’m alright Jack ( or Jill )” attitude. The first line of defence when complained about is to accept you could be wrong, thank them for drawing to your attention, agree to investigate, set out clearly how the investigation will be conducted, how long it will take, who will investigate, what the review process is, and ask what they want to put things right, and offer to do things. Often ends up de escalating.

Sending it off to the Comms Commission had to be done. But that’s separate. I don’t think MR did any of the things that they should have done. They’re two separate things.

And yes, it’s easy to get it wrong. I used the term American Indian on here recently, instead of Native American or First Nation. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gladys said:

We can all be unintentionally insensitive, John, we are all human after all. You are trained in adversarial debate, that is the nature of your profession, and probably would have handled the calls differently.  But it was a co-ordinated ambush, that very few of us non-advocates would be able to handle confidently.

I don't know how or whether MR could have been pre-emptive, when they were waiting for the CC's decision.  I would bet my bottom dollar that they are looking at training right now as recommended by the CC. 

BLM/POC IOM  seem unwilling to engage with MR despite the offer.  As you say  there is no need for complainer input, but wouldn't you jump at the chance to be given a platform to put your points across? 

The other problem is it is not clear who the complainers are - is it a disparate group of people who took offence, or is it a group of people with a cohesive and coherent vision?  I have posted elsewhere about POC IOM defining what they are and their aims - it is not enough to say "we are supporters of BLM and if you don't support us you are racist" - wouldn't you want to organise yourselves to be an effective persuasion group offering to speak to organisations on how inadvertent racism can impact and how it can be avoided?

The gay community was mobilised in the wake of AIDS (something that I commented on to you once, clumsily) and became very persuasive and gave a cohesive and coherent message, improving the lot of the LGBT community immeasurably, even though there is still a long way to go.  

But these guys aren't. 

I don’t subscribe to the ambush conspiracy paranoia, I’m afraid. But we will never know.

There are two things here. First the regulator and second the response of the station. They can be concurrent. They needn’t be consecutive.

MR might be better to publicly call the bluff of the BLM/POC by saying they’ve booked the training, who with, and asking them what else they want.

The who is difficult. I’ll try and deal with that in conjunction with the gay mobilisation post aids point. There isn’t an LGBTQI+ community. Just as there isn’t a BAME community. There are lots of different communities within those labels, and with huge differences of approach and differing political outlooks and strategies. From ( initially ) a very prim, proper, mainly white, male Stonewall, through Gay Men Fighting AIDS, Tatchell, to all sorts in the UK. And the USA was much worse with the extremes between , GMFA,  ACTuP, GHMC ( a sort of Stonewall ). ACTUP was all civil disobedience. I’m not sure BLM or PoC are any more united or share any political philosophy. They’re broad churches.

My reading, and I’ve been in community activism of sorts since the 1980’s, is that the various factions in these types of so called communities are driven as much by their dislike of others in the various groups - especially in relation to means, if not the actual aims, as they are by whatever it is they’re fighting or campaigning for.

Generally they coalesce around a “big thing”. HIV may have been the start. In the UK it was section 28. That really brought everyone together, Thatcher became a bete noire. Without s.28 the LGBTQI+ would probably not have got as far as it has. And at the moment it’s tearing itself apart over safe spaces for women and the trans question.

Perhaps Floyd, and MR/Stu in IoM, will be the impetus. I have my doubts. However more likely to make these groups coalesce and succeed will be the negative, and,  even if not racist, insensitive backlash, such as on here.
 

Gladys, clumsy, you? Never. Always eloquent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Somewhat, a register has to be kept, open to inspection by the regulator, investigated and there is a time limit for reply with the outcome and do on. However, there is no requirement to publish either the complaint or the steps taken in response.  I don't know what their policy is, if it was or was not followed  so I am not assuming whether they handled it correctly or not, but you are. 

Well you wouldn’t publish. It’s a private confidential matter. MR isn’t. It’s public when someone objects to content.

And yes, you can deal with complaints by tick boxing, making entries, but my experience, of fellow professionals, is that you mustn't start with the Attitude there is no merit, you can’t be wrong, that’s the way to complaint to the regulator or court and many, lost, billable hours. Rather you need to approach it on the basis of what can I do for you, what are you looking for? How do we resolve this. But it’s not getting them in for a cosy chat. It’s more structural than that in many cases.

I often see the outcome of poorly handled financial services complaints. I’m a Financial Services Ombudsman. Litigation apart I’m the final resort. The complainant has gone through the internal process, then the mediation service. Then they come to me. There are irrational complainants who won’t ever be satisfied, as often as there are intransigent service providers who didn’t take the complaint seriously. With a bit more insight and flexibility the service provider could have headed it off at first contact in most cases and saved a fortune in time and effort.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, woolley said:

Exactly. By judging that procedure has not been followed, JW is presuming to know the what the correct procedure is. I don't know what qualifies him to know this.

See my response to Gladys, immediately above. Final paragraph. Oh, and I’m an ADR trained mediator. I have a bit of insight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, victorian dad said:

For those of us who don't do phone speak what is ADR?

Alternative Dispute Resolution. Generally mediation, or dispute resolution without going to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Thatcher became a bete noire. Without s.28 the LGBTQI+ would probably not have got as far as it has.

Yes and no. I saw both sides of that. I knew gay people who hated Thatcher. Mostly younger people who would be in their 50s now. But I knew just as many others who thought she was fantastic and no irony. In my own family for example. And I knew people who were ambivalent too. Not everyone is political. It's surprising.

Personally I thought that Section 28 was sinister.

Edited by pongo
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Alternative Dispute Resolution. Generally mediation, or dispute resolution without going to court.

Do you think that you would be legally practicing on the IOM, Chair of the Metal Health decision panel, writing wills, a Financial services ombudsman, an ADR mediator, an owner of homes in three different countries, without 'male white priviledge'?

 

 

Edited by Manximus Aururaneus
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Do you think that you would be legally practicing on the IOM, Chair of the Metal Health decision panel, writing wills, a Financial services ombudsman, an ADR mediator, an owner of homes in three different countries, without 'male white priviledge'?

I am going to guess that JW acknowledges that 'white male privilege' but would also state that without the other prejudices he has faced he may have had more success.

Some people succeed no matter what obstacles they have to face others are impacted more and struggle to overcome the barriers.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Well you wouldn’t publish. It’s a private confidential matter. MR isn’t. It’s public when someone objects to content.

And yes, you can deal with complaints by tick boxing, making entries, but my experience, of fellow professionals, is that you mustn't start with the Attitude there is no merit, you can’t be wrong, that’s the way to complaint to the regulator or court and many, lost, billable hours. Rather you need to approach it on the basis of what can I do for you, what are you looking for? How do we resolve this. But it’s not getting them in for a cosy chat. It’s more structural than that in many cases.

I often see the outcome of poorly handled financial services complaints. I’m a Financial Services Ombudsman. Litigation apart I’m the final resort. The complainant has gone through the internal process, then the mediation service. Then they come to me. There are irrational complainants who won’t ever be satisfied, as often as there are intransigent service providers who didn’t take the complaint seriously. With a bit more insight and flexibility the service provider could have headed it off at first contact in most cases and saved a fortune in time and effort.

 

But did MR start with the attitude of being no merit?  As I said, suspension was quick as was a statement the next day. Neither you nor I are privy to the actual correspondence or actions taken by MR. 

You are right, a complaint in the financial services arena is very different to a complaint to a broadcaster regarding content.   In my days in that arena, I handled a number of complaints, and it most definitely was not a tick box exercise; the majority arose from a misconception of the relationship of a client with the entities managed, I always took the stance of trying to find a resolution whilst not undermining the very structure we were paid to look after.

But that is neither here nor there in the current debate as this is not about a failure in professional conduct.  This is about people taking offence at opinions which are not consistent with their own. 

Another YouTube clip to watch is a series of excerpts from debates on political correctness and freedom of speech by Rowan Atkinson, Ricky Gervais and Stephen Fry. 

Ricky Gervais defended his position that no topic is off limits for a carefully constructed joke.  He also said in response to people objecting to a particular joke  that it was their right not to listen, not to demand that he should shut up.

Stephen Fry from the same interview I watched last night, in which he called out victimhood for being self-pity, an unattractive quality, and that whilst was sympathetic to whatever it was he might be more sympathetic without the self pity.

Rowan Atkinson, debating Section 5  said that causing offence, per se,  should never be illegal, as offence was a manifestation of opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Wright said:

I don’t subscribe to the ambush conspiracy paranoia, I’m afraid. But we will never know.

There are two things here. First the regulator and second the response of the station. They can be concurrent. They needn’t be consecutive.

MR might be better to publicly call the bluff of the BLM/POC by saying they’ve booked the training, who with, and asking them what else they want.

The who is difficult. I’ll try and deal with that in conjunction with the gay mobilisation post aids point. There isn’t an LGBTQI+ community. Just as there isn’t a BAME community. There are lots of different communities within those labels, and with huge differences of approach and differing political outlooks and strategies. From ( initially ) a very prim, proper, mainly white, male Stonewall, through Gay Men Fighting AIDS, Tatchell, to all sorts in the UK. And the USA was much worse with the extremes between , GMFA,  ACTuP, GHMC ( a sort of Stonewall ). ACTUP was all civil disobedience. I’m not sure BLM or PoC are any more united or share any political philosophy. They’re broad churches.

My reading, and I’ve been in community activism of sorts since the 1980’s, is that the various factions in these types of so called communities are driven as much by their dislike of others in the various groups - especially in relation to means, if not the actual aims, as they are by whatever it is they’re fighting or campaigning for.

Generally they coalesce around a “big thing”. HIV may have been the start. In the UK it was section 28. That really brought everyone together, Thatcher became a bete noire. Without s.28 the LGBTQI+ would probably not have got as far as it has. And at the moment it’s tearing itself apart over safe spaces for women and the trans question.

Perhaps Floyd, and MR/Stu in IoM, will be the impetus. I have my doubts. However more likely to make these groups coalesce and succeed will be the negative, and,  even if not racist, insensitive backlash, such as on here.
 

Gladys, clumsy, you? Never. Always eloquent.

Thank you for the last compliment, (always a sucker for them),   but I would ask again, did you listen to the whole programme?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

I am going to guess that JW acknowledges that 'white male privilege' but would also state that without the other prejudices he has faced he may have had more success.

Some people succeed no matter what obstacles they have to face others are impacted more and struggle to overcome the barriers.

Well let's see shall we. You seem to be saying that anyone with the ability to succeed can do so anyway?

Edited by Manximus Aururaneus
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Do you think that you would be legally practicing on the IOM, Chair of the Metal Health decision panel, writing wills, a Financial services ombudsman, an ADR mediator, an owner of homes in three different countries, without 'male white priviledge'?

 

 

Of course I’m white male privileged. I’ll never know if being outspoken, cussed, dogged, fat, gay, etc held me back. I don’t think much about those sort of things. I just get on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

I am going to guess that JW acknowledges that 'white male privilege' but would also state that without the other prejudices he has faced he may have had more success.

Some people succeed no matter what obstacles they have to face others are impacted more and struggle to overcome the barriers.

Not sure I’ve faced obstacles or prejudices. I’ve mainly done the things I wanted to. If there were barriers they’ve been low. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...