So I have been sacked for racial abuse...

166million

I think you're either making this up, or...well you need to have a word with yourself.

mumx3

Sounds like political correctness gone mad!! it really does seem very unfair to sack you on hearsay from others, without hearing your side of things and also statements from the women, if they were not offended then why should it bother anyone else?

fed_up_and_stressed

Legally it is harrassment under the Equality Act 2010 . A person making the complaint does not have to have the protected characteristic (in this case Race and Gender to make a complaint of harrassment under the act, and the complaint of harrassment does not have to be aimed at the complainant for it to be illegal.

Sambucus_Nigra

mumx3 wrote: »

Sounds like political correctness gone mad!! it really does seem very unfair to sack you on hearsay from others, without hearing your side of things and also statements from the women, if they were not offended then why should it bother anyone else?

Really? Political correctness gone mad?

Seems to me like a clear cut case of sexual and racial harassment.

Thing is, often the person being harassed is a little too scared of rebukes from the harasser and thus won't complain on their own behalf; it's up to people who witness this sort of thing to make complaints in order that this sort of behaviour is addressed.

mumx3

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Really? Political correctness gone mad?

Seems to me like a clear cut case of sexual and racial harassment.

Thing is, often the person being harassed is a little too scared of rebukes from the harasser and thus won't complain on their own behalf; it's up to people who witness this sort of thing to make complaints in order that this sort of behaviour is addressed.

And how does the boss know
that the guys who reported it were telling the truth?
That they didn't think it up as they don't like the guy and wanted him out?
Why didn't the 2 women involved complain?

How on earth can you sack someone on hearsay??

If the women was a guy with Ginger hair and he had called him Ginge for example, would the others of reported that and would it of been a sackable offence?? I don't think so!

stix62

mumx3 wrote: »

And how does the boss know
that the guys who reported it were telling the truth?
That they didn't think it up as they don't like the guy and wanted him out?
Why didn't the 2 women involved complain?

How on earth can you sack someone on hearsay??

If the women was a guy with Ginger hair and he had called him Ginge for example, would the others of reported that and would it of been a sackable offence?? I don't think so!

Are you kidding?

Sambucus_Nigra

mumx3 wrote: »

And how does the boss know
that the guys who reported it were telling the truth?
That they didn't think it up as they don't like the guy and wanted him out?
Why didn't the 2 women involved complain?

How on earth can you sack someone on hearsay??

If the women was a guy with Ginger hair and he had called him Ginge for example, would the others of reported that and would it of been a sackable offence?? I don't think so!

You think wrong then!

mumx3

stix62 wrote: »

Are you kidding?

No not at all I really think we have all taken this too far, for someone to lose their livelyhood though saying something to someone that someone else didn't like is absurd.

Sambucus_Nigra

mumx3 wrote: »

No not at all I really think we have all taken this too far, for someone to lose their livelyhood though saying something to someone that someone else didn't like is absurd.

The OP DID say these things. It's written clearly in the first post.

So if your kid called an old lady a b1tch - even if she didn't say anything to him you'd be 'aah that's ok then, if she didn't complain, all is fine'?

Tuesday_Tenor

Overall, Matikaya, you have my sympathy. I think you have a particular sense of humour which needs to be reserved for people who know you well and NOT used with acquaintances. And avoid drinking so much that you can't tell where it's inappropriate. Unfortunately 'different sense of humour' isn't a good enough defence if it has caused genuine offence to others.

Two particular comments allow ME to understnad you:

Matikata wrote: »

As I said, the jokey part of saying I don't take orders from women was the fact that I do take orders from women. .

Matikata wrote: »

In my mind, calling her Dave when her name wasn't, was an obvious ironic statement that I find funny, in the same way I would find it funny if I overheard it between other people. Black dave is merely observation.

As I do, you have a very dry sense of humour, where the humour lies in the RIDICULOUSNESS of what you are saying. You and your good friends know that you are not racist/sexist, so they would find the comments you made ridiculous and therefore funny. The completely ridiculous idea that you might be thinking in a derogatory way is at the nub of the joke!

However, as you have found to your cost, this is easily open to misunderstanding and often does not work with people who don't know you well. The girl K was on the same wavelength as you and 'got the joke', even though she doesn't know you well. Many others wouldn't.

I too have offended people by saying something (not racist/sexist, more in terms of personal foibles) where the humour was the rdiculousness of the idea that I could possibly mean it. But it only needs to touch a unexprected sensitive spot to NOT be deemed funny. So I have learned to be a bit more careful.

Hope it helps to know that some people understand where you are coming from, but unfortunately 'just a joke' won't be an adequate defence.

Sorry it came to the sacking. But move on, with care. Reserve your dryest humour for private conversations with your best mates.