This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
So Richard Scudamore (who doubles up as a jockey in his spare time) uses crude language and refers to the other lot as "irrational". Personally I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
What should be done about it?
In reply to Postmanpat:
The thing that baffles me slightly about this whole case is that, unless I've read something wrong, it was all in his private email. On that basis, I'm not sure what it has to do with anyone else. If it was his work email, or he was being an arse in public like those two pundits a while back whose names I forget, it might be different, but isn't this like someone rummaging through a private diary for things to be offended by?
The thing that baffles me slightly about this whole case is that, unless I've read something wrong, it was all in his private email. On that basis, I'm not sure what it has to do with anyone else. If it was his work email, or he was being an arse in public like those two pundits a while back whose names I forget, it might be different, but isn't this like someone rummaging through a private diary for things to be offended by?
In reply to Tall Clare:
Absolutely. Private banter is private banter and does not necessarily (and probably usually doesn't) reflect the actual views of a person, let alone our ability to do our job. I suspect most of us would lose our jobs if everything we said in private was aired out of context in public and taken at face value as our considered opinion.
Absolutely. Private banter is private banter and does not necessarily (and probably usually doesn't) reflect the actual views of a person, let alone our ability to do our job. I suspect most of us would lose our jobs if everything we said in private was aired out of context in public and taken at face value as our considered opinion.
In reply to Robert Durran:
It could be argued a private email would be a fairer reflection of his views than an official email. Maybe it was a joke, context is important. I haven't seen the email.
It could be argued a private email would be a fairer reflection of his views than an official email. Maybe it was a joke, context is important. I haven't seen the email.
In reply to Robert Durran:
From what I understand, he was using his work e-mail account which his PA had access to. I thought his comments were quite nasty and offensive, I have to say. For someone in his position, who has to draw up strategies for diversity and inclusion in football, I would say that his views are incompatible so would be surprised if he stays in position for long.
From what I understand, he was using his work e-mail account which his PA had access to. I thought his comments were quite nasty and offensive, I have to say. For someone in his position, who has to draw up strategies for diversity and inclusion in football, I would say that his views are incompatible so would be surprised if he stays in position for long.
In reply to Postmanpat:
The pithy insinuation that only football people commit casual sexism is laughable.
However - this case does underline (for me) the fact that the PL is untouchable and well out of the reach of the FA. He should go for this - because now every campaign to rid football of sexism will be undermined by his presence.
The pithy insinuation that only football people commit casual sexism is laughable.
However - this case does underline (for me) the fact that the PL is untouchable and well out of the reach of the FA. He should go for this - because now every campaign to rid football of sexism will be undermined by his presence.
In reply to wynaptomos:
Does he? I thought that was the FA's remit. He is chief exec of the PL... making sure its a successful business. Which by all accounts it is.
> who has to draw up strategies for diversity and inclusion in football,
Does he? I thought that was the FA's remit. He is chief exec of the PL... making sure its a successful business. Which by all accounts it is.
In reply to Tall Clare:
Wasn't it was his work email, being used for private purposes ?
Have the contents of the email been made public, or is it sufficient that someone found them offensive ? Even if that person shouldn't have been looking ?
I think Gray and Keys (the pundits) clearly had a reputation amongst the staff for being offensive, derogatory and quite lecherous off-air, and so someone decided it was time to stitch them up.
Was that the case here, or just opportunism by the PA ?
Wasn't it was his work email, being used for private purposes ?
Have the contents of the email been made public, or is it sufficient that someone found them offensive ? Even if that person shouldn't have been looking ?
I think Gray and Keys (the pundits) clearly had a reputation amongst the staff for being offensive, derogatory and quite lecherous off-air, and so someone decided it was time to stitch them up.
Was that the case here, or just opportunism by the PA ?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Ah, if it was his work email, as I said I think that's a very different matter.
Ah, if it was his work email, as I said I think that's a very different matter.
In reply to Postmanpat:
It also continued to maintain that the whistleblower who leaked Scudamore’s emails to a Sunday newspaper was not authorised to access the account from which the offensive messages were sent and received.
Sue the pants off them then, gross breach of privacy and trust.
It also continued to maintain that the whistleblower who leaked Scudamore’s emails to a Sunday newspaper was not authorised to access the account from which the offensive messages were sent and received.
Sue the pants off them then, gross breach of privacy and trust.
In reply to wynaptomos:
Really? I think you are being naive; try googling how much money he has made for those people who are likely to have the biggest say on the matter and who have already made their views clear.
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> .....would be surprised if he stays in position for long.
>
> .....would be surprised if he stays in position for long.
Really? I think you are being naive; try googling how much money he has made for those people who are likely to have the biggest say on the matter and who have already made their views clear.
In reply to stroppygob:
I bet she doesn't get much work as a PA in the future. I hope her Sunday Mirror payoff was worth sacrificing her future employment prospects for.
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
>
> It also continued to maintain that the whistleblower who leaked Scudamore’s emails to a Sunday newspaper was not authorised to access the account from which the offensive messages were sent and received.
>
>
> Sue the pants off them then, gross breach of privacy and trust.
>
>
> It also continued to maintain that the whistleblower who leaked Scudamore’s emails to a Sunday newspaper was not authorised to access the account from which the offensive messages were sent and received.
>
>
> Sue the pants off them then, gross breach of privacy and trust.
I bet she doesn't get much work as a PA in the future. I hope her Sunday Mirror payoff was worth sacrificing her future employment prospects for.
In reply to Robert Durran:
This doesn't seem to be the view of the media hounds. Should people who tell dirty jokes at the expense of women in private or public be employed in serious jobs?
> Absolutely. Private banter is private banter and does not necessarily (and probably usually doesn't) reflect the actual views of a person, let alone our ability to do our job. I suspect most of us would lose our jobs if everything we said in private was aired out of context in public and taken at face value as our considered opinion.
This doesn't seem to be the view of the media hounds. Should people who tell dirty jokes at the expense of women in private or public be employed in serious jobs?
In reply to Johnny_Grunwald:
Maybe, but apparently Barclays are very concerned about it. When the sponsors start getting involved it is not hard to imagine that someone has to pay a price.
> Really? I think you are being naive; try googling how much money he has made for those people who are likely to have the biggest say on the matter and who have already made their views clear.
Maybe, but apparently Barclays are very concerned about it. When the sponsors start getting involved it is not hard to imagine that someone has to pay a price.
In reply to JMGLondon:
>
Are you suggesting that rugby players or cricketers or, God forbid, climbers would make such comments? Now I'm really shocked…...
> The pithy insinuation that only football people commit casual sexism is laughable.
>
Are you suggesting that rugby players or cricketers or, God forbid, climbers would make such comments? Now I'm really shocked…...
Post edited at 11:49
In reply to Postmanpat:
In public, no. He has a visible, 'figurehead' job, and that requires a particular standard of behaviour.
In public, no. He has a visible, 'figurehead' job, and that requires a particular standard of behaviour.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Apparently it was his work email, and it was in correspondence with a rights lawyer who's been an adviser to Scudamore for quite a long time.
It sounds like gross stupidity to me, at the very least. You never write anything in a vaguely work-related email (i.e. one sent from a work email address) that you wouldn't be comfortable to see published or made more widely known beyond the immediate recipients.
> Wasn't it was his work email, being used for private purposes ?
Apparently it was his work email, and it was in correspondence with a rights lawyer who's been an adviser to Scudamore for quite a long time.
It sounds like gross stupidity to me, at the very least. You never write anything in a vaguely work-related email (i.e. one sent from a work email address) that you wouldn't be comfortable to see published or made more widely known beyond the immediate recipients.
In reply to wynaptomos:
You might be right. I think the odds are still in his favour for staying but time will tell.
> (In reply to Johnny_Grunwald)
>
> [...]
>
> Maybe, but apparently Barclays are very concerned about it. When the sponsors start getting involved it is not hard to imagine that someone has to pay a price.
>
> [...]
>
> Maybe, but apparently Barclays are very concerned about it. When the sponsors start getting involved it is not hard to imagine that someone has to pay a price.
You might be right. I think the odds are still in his favour for staying but time will tell.
In reply to Tall Clare:
I haven't followed this case in detail, but yes, it was a temporary PA who had access to his private email and then released it to the press. From what I gather what HE wrote (as opposed to the other correspondent) was a bit tiresome and blokey, but hardly outrageous, and a proportionate response from the lady who "outed" him would, IMO, have been to speak to him about it, maybe gauge his true feelings, look for signs that there was actually a culture of demeaning women in his work.
But instead she took it to the media. Having done so, rather than simply saying something like "It's a shame he's expressed these views, make of it what you will" or suchlike, she's condemned him in the strongest, most sanctimonious, pious, holier-than-thou manner, which I find intensely irritating. Firstly, how great it must be to be as perfect as her, so able to judge and express one's superiority over others and to be so sure of your own rightness about things. Secondly, what does she have left to say about rapists, murderers, child-abductors and the like? Or is Scudamore worse than these type of people?
Another thing I don't like about these type of issues is the binary nature of them. People are labelled as "bad" and that's it. There's no nuance, no balance. If there's a hint that somebody is an -ist, they are A BAD PERSON.
I haven't followed this case in detail, but yes, it was a temporary PA who had access to his private email and then released it to the press. From what I gather what HE wrote (as opposed to the other correspondent) was a bit tiresome and blokey, but hardly outrageous, and a proportionate response from the lady who "outed" him would, IMO, have been to speak to him about it, maybe gauge his true feelings, look for signs that there was actually a culture of demeaning women in his work.
But instead she took it to the media. Having done so, rather than simply saying something like "It's a shame he's expressed these views, make of it what you will" or suchlike, she's condemned him in the strongest, most sanctimonious, pious, holier-than-thou manner, which I find intensely irritating. Firstly, how great it must be to be as perfect as her, so able to judge and express one's superiority over others and to be so sure of your own rightness about things. Secondly, what does she have left to say about rapists, murderers, child-abductors and the like? Or is Scudamore worse than these type of people?
Another thing I don't like about these type of issues is the binary nature of them. People are labelled as "bad" and that's it. There's no nuance, no balance. If there's a hint that somebody is an -ist, they are A BAD PERSON.
In reply to Postmanpat:
This all sounds very 1984. Very soon we won't even be allowed to think about anything without facing the death penalty.
This all sounds very 1984. Very soon we won't even be allowed to think about anything without facing the death penalty.
In reply to Tall Clare:
I agree on that. My concern is that, as you say, these were apparently private e mails which I would regard was the equivalent of of a private conversation. So if he is punished for this it is basically the equivalent of being punished for an overheard conversation. Large parts of the media seem to regard this as fine.
By the sound of it the e mails were frankly pretty juvenile and pathetic but we've all heard similar from people (not only men) and probably indulged in it at some stage. Should it now be considered so unacceptable, done in private, that people lose their jobs for it?
> In public, no. He has a visible, 'figurehead' job, and that requires a particular standard of behaviour.
I agree on that. My concern is that, as you say, these were apparently private e mails which I would regard was the equivalent of of a private conversation. So if he is punished for this it is basically the equivalent of being punished for an overheard conversation. Large parts of the media seem to regard this as fine.
By the sound of it the e mails were frankly pretty juvenile and pathetic but we've all heard similar from people (not only men) and probably indulged in it at some stage. Should it now be considered so unacceptable, done in private, that people lose their jobs for it?
Post edited at 12:06
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
It was the same email address that he used when he sent his round-robin email to PL clubs before yesterday's meeting. So if it was used for official PL business yesterday, I'm not sure how it counts as a private email address.
> I haven't followed this case in detail, but yes, it was a temporary PA who had access to his private email and then released it to the press.
It was the same email address that he used when he sent his round-robin email to PL clubs before yesterday's meeting. So if it was used for official PL business yesterday, I'm not sure how it counts as a private email address.
In reply to tony:
So is his "crime" to make such comments, which were clearly intended to be private, or to be so dumb as to put them on an e mail which he also used for company business.
> It was the same email address that he used when he sent his round-robin email to PL clubs before yesterday's meeting. So if it was used for official PL business yesterday, I'm not sure how it counts as a private email address.
So is his "crime" to make such comments, which were clearly intended to be private, or to be so dumb as to put them on an e mail which he also used for company business.
In reply to tony:
This distinction between private and public email addresses is bollocks. It's a matter for the organisation that provides him with the email address what their policy about using it is. As far as getting all publicly outraged goes, there's no difference at all.
It would be desirable if the PL had taken a far harder stance, to wit; we do not investigate our employees for comments made in emails which are not sent in the course of their job, our employees are allowed a certain amount of use of the email facilities we provide them with for personal purposes and we see no reason to think there was excessive usage in this case, we have sacked the PA concerned and no further comment will be made.
Incidentally, can someone explain to me why going to fancy dress parties dressed as a suicide bomber is deplorable?
jcm
This distinction between private and public email addresses is bollocks. It's a matter for the organisation that provides him with the email address what their policy about using it is. As far as getting all publicly outraged goes, there's no difference at all.
It would be desirable if the PL had taken a far harder stance, to wit; we do not investigate our employees for comments made in emails which are not sent in the course of their job, our employees are allowed a certain amount of use of the email facilities we provide them with for personal purposes and we see no reason to think there was excessive usage in this case, we have sacked the PA concerned and no further comment will be made.
Incidentally, can someone explain to me why going to fancy dress parties dressed as a suicide bomber is deplorable?
jcm
In reply to Postmanpat:
Mostly the latter, I reckon. If he wants things to stay private, he should use private email. I have no idea what kind of equality culture exists within the PL. I doubt it's very progressive (but I could be wrong), but I've no idea what part Scudamore plays in directing that culture.
> So is his "crime" to make such comments, which were clearly intended to be private, or to be so dumb as to put them on an e mail which he also used for company business.
Mostly the latter, I reckon. If he wants things to stay private, he should use private email. I have no idea what kind of equality culture exists within the PL. I doubt it's very progressive (but I could be wrong), but I've no idea what part Scudamore plays in directing that culture.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Surely it's really not that tricky to run a gmail address (for instance) alongside a work email?
Surely it's really not that tricky to run a gmail address (for instance) alongside a work email?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
It's not quite bollocks. If he had used a private email address, his PA wouldn't have read the email and nobody apart from Scudamore and lawyer pal would know about the content. Because it was a business email address, she claims she had reason to read it, and when she did read it, she didn't like what she saw.
> This distinction between private and public email addresses is bollocks.
It's not quite bollocks. If he had used a private email address, his PA wouldn't have read the email and nobody apart from Scudamore and lawyer pal would know about the content. Because it was a business email address, she claims she had reason to read it, and when she did read it, she didn't like what she saw.
In reply to Postmanpat:
As a high profile exec he's exercising very poor judgement if he expects emails from his work account to stay private. He's currently got the media over a barrel with PL rights negotiations so it's no surprise they're firing back.
As a high profile exec he's exercising very poor judgement if he expects emails from his work account to stay private. He's currently got the media over a barrel with PL rights negotiations so it's no surprise they're firing back.
In reply to Tall Clare:
I'm aware of some companies that do not allow use of web-based email on company PCs as this could allow people to cut and paste sensitive data.
BYOD (Bring your own device) is a growing trend, especially since most people can now access emails by phone - though many of my mates still use work addresses.
In the Scudamore case it does look like the emails were somewhat work-related anyway.
At the very least he should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute and given a 10-match ban !
> Surely it's really not that tricky to run a gmail address (for instance) alongside a work email?
I'm aware of some companies that do not allow use of web-based email on company PCs as this could allow people to cut and paste sensitive data.
BYOD (Bring your own device) is a growing trend, especially since most people can now access emails by phone - though many of my mates still use work addresses.
In the Scudamore case it does look like the emails were somewhat work-related anyway.
At the very least he should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute and given a 10-match ban !
In reply to tony:
He, on the other hand, says that he asked her to find an email address and she took the opportunity to read his emails.
I know who I believe. PA's don't have any cause to read their bosses' emails routinely in my experience.
jcm
He, on the other hand, says that he asked her to find an email address and she took the opportunity to read his emails.
I know who I believe. PA's don't have any cause to read their bosses' emails routinely in my experience.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Unless the situation is that the PA manages all of his or her manager's mail, in which case they can read what they like, but if that were the situation something like this would be unlikely to arise...
Unless the situation is that the PA manages all of his or her manager's mail, in which case they can read what they like, but if that were the situation something like this would be unlikely to arise...
In reply to Postmanpat:
If his PA was expected to read all his e-mail as part of her job then he should have avoided language that might offend her.
On the other hand if his reasonable expectation was that this e-mail would only be read by the addressee and the addressee was clearly not offended then I don't see how the e-mail was offensive. Also, if evidence, like these e-mails, is obtained improperly then it shouldn't be admissible.
However, he probably broke the work e-mail policy of the organisation and he should have known that there was a good chance of e-mail leaking to the press or becoming evidence in litigation and been more careful. It doesn't say much for the competence of the CEO or the lawyer in question when they put stuff like that in work e-mail. So maybe they should be disciplined/fired for incompetence and breaking e-mail policy rather than offensiveness.
If his PA was expected to read all his e-mail as part of her job then he should have avoided language that might offend her.
On the other hand if his reasonable expectation was that this e-mail would only be read by the addressee and the addressee was clearly not offended then I don't see how the e-mail was offensive. Also, if evidence, like these e-mails, is obtained improperly then it shouldn't be admissible.
However, he probably broke the work e-mail policy of the organisation and he should have known that there was a good chance of e-mail leaking to the press or becoming evidence in litigation and been more careful. It doesn't say much for the competence of the CEO or the lawyer in question when they put stuff like that in work e-mail. So maybe they should be disciplined/fired for incompetence and breaking e-mail policy rather than offensiveness.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm not particularly excited by this but there is a distinction between phone calls and emails. Emails are not classed as private unless encrypted.... usual this is reinforced at places that are sensitive about information. Many people were pretty blase about this kind of thing at first, daft email jokes going round, porn at work... but wised up pretty quickly. Scudamore evidently didn't.
> I agree on that. My concern is that, as you say, these were apparently private e mails which I would regard was the equivalent of of a private conversation. So if he is punished for this it is basically the equivalent of being punished for an overheard conversation. Large parts of the media seem to regard this as fine.
I'm not particularly excited by this but there is a distinction between phone calls and emails. Emails are not classed as private unless encrypted.... usual this is reinforced at places that are sensitive about information. Many people were pretty blase about this kind of thing at first, daft email jokes going round, porn at work... but wised up pretty quickly. Scudamore evidently didn't.
In reply to Tall Clare:
Well, it depends what you mean by 'manages'. Mine get copied to my PA so that she can file them and so forth, but I certainly wouldn't expect her to be reading the ones to my wife, for example.
jcm
Well, it depends what you mean by 'manages'. Mine get copied to my PA so that she can file them and so forth, but I certainly wouldn't expect her to be reading the ones to my wife, for example.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I know that for some people, they simply don't use their own email - it's all fielded by a PA. I imagine it's a throwback to when people had secretaries to deal with their correspondence.
I know that for some people, they simply don't use their own email - it's all fielded by a PA. I imagine it's a throwback to when people had secretaries to deal with their correspondence.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
What about ones to work associates?
> Well, it depends what you mean by 'manages'. Mine get copied to my PA so that she can file them and so forth, but I certainly wouldn't expect her to be reading the ones to my wife, for example.
What about ones to work associates?
In reply to Postmanpat:
Personally I'd just write him off as a bit of an arse, but I'm not his employer worrying about how his actions will impact on their commercial operation for the next decade.
Personally I'd just write him off as a bit of an arse, but I'm not his employer worrying about how his actions will impact on their commercial operation for the next decade.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I assume the FA will have an IT use policy.
> So is his "crime" to make such comments, which were clearly intended to be private, or to be so dumb as to put them on an e mail which he also used for company business.
I assume the FA will have an IT use policy.
In reply to Tall Clare:
hmm, what if the comments were directed towards people with disabilities? Or were racist? Whether private or business, I'm sure the 'public interest' rule would be applied and his position would be viewed untenable. It begs the question of whether sexism is considered a lesser transgression.
> The thing that baffles me slightly about this whole case is that, unless I've read something wrong, it was all in his private email. On that basis, I'm not sure what it has to do with anyone else.
hmm, what if the comments were directed towards people with disabilities? Or were racist? Whether private or business, I'm sure the 'public interest' rule would be applied and his position would be viewed untenable. It begs the question of whether sexism is considered a lesser transgression.
In reply to FrankBooth:
I don't agree with sexism, but a private email is a private email (in this case it wasn't his private email). I could be saying all sorts in my private email and it wouldn't be any of anyone else's business unless I was actively promoting race hatred or similar, surely.
Disclaimer: Obviously, me being me, my personal email inbox is mostly full of conversation about fluffy cats and dogs with floppy ears.
I don't agree with sexism, but a private email is a private email (in this case it wasn't his private email). I could be saying all sorts in my private email and it wouldn't be any of anyone else's business unless I was actively promoting race hatred or similar, surely.
Disclaimer: Obviously, me being me, my personal email inbox is mostly full of conversation about fluffy cats and dogs with floppy ears.
In reply to Tall Clare:
There are many things we can do that are perfectly legal that could get us sacked. Being a boorish sexist, when your organisation has a lot of time, money and corporate goodwill tied in to promoting women's football, probably counts as one of those.
As you acknowledge, it wasn't a private email, but even if it was, people still have to be careful about what they communicate to people if their personal views are inconsistent with their professional views.
There are many things we can do that are perfectly legal that could get us sacked. Being a boorish sexist, when your organisation has a lot of time, money and corporate goodwill tied in to promoting women's football, probably counts as one of those.
As you acknowledge, it wasn't a private email, but even if it was, people still have to be careful about what they communicate to people if their personal views are inconsistent with their professional views.
In reply to Postmanpat:
The PA's side of the story
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/exposed-richard-scudam...
Crucially, the emails appeared in the inbox on her PC
The PA's side of the story
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/exposed-richard-scudam...
Crucially, the emails appeared in the inbox on her PC
In reply to The New NickB:
Of course he works for the Premier League, not the FA.
> I assume the FA will have an IT use policy.
Of course he works for the Premier League, not the FA.
In reply to The New NickB:
What people say as banter with their mates probably doesn't reflect their personal or their professional view.
> People still have to be careful about what they communicate to people if their personal views are inconsistent with their professional views.
What people say as banter with their mates probably doesn't reflect their personal or their professional view.
In reply to Robert Durran:
No, probably not, if the two had this batter in the pub I guess it wouldn't be an issue. As it was it was email and to make it worse, work email.
> What people say as banter with their mates probably doesn't reflect their personal or their professional view.
No, probably not, if the two had this batter in the pub I guess it wouldn't be an issue. As it was it was email and to make it worse, work email.
In reply to The New NickB:
Yes, the only possible issue is that it was work email.
> No, probably not, if the two had this batter in the pub I guess it wouldn't be an issue. As it was it was email and to make it worse, work email.
Yes, the only possible issue is that it was work email.
In reply to Robert Durran:
I suspect the rules change if you are high profile, but that said, I could put things on Facebook or Twitter that are perfectly legal, but would get me sacked. I also maintain a tiny degree of annonymity on here for a reason.
> Yes, the only possible issue is that it was work email.
I suspect the rules change if you are high profile, but that said, I could put things on Facebook or Twitter that are perfectly legal, but would get me sacked. I also maintain a tiny degree of annonymity on here for a reason.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...