http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/weblogs/story/0,14024,1388466,00.html

Another victory for the thought police.

Shouldn't have used his real name or mentioned the name of the company that employed him.

Worked for a certain high street bookstore, they were not as liberal and friendly as they like to make the public think; but naming names was just asking for trouble.

Originally posted by Carmine
Another victory for the thought police

No it isn't. Would YOU like it if you were the 'sandal wearing boss', or the owner of the company described thus...

On one occasion, he ranted about his "sandal-wearing" manager he nicknamed "Evil Boss", which he said was a caricature like the "Pointy Haired Boss" in the Dilbert cartoons. In another posting, Mr Gordon joked about "Bastardstone's".

I would have sacked him for sheer stupidity! :clap:

It is in the fact that misguided use of a medium has been used to punish an individual for expressing himself.

I think the guy was foolish to write the comments that he did, they were insulting and seem quite childish! It's one thing to lampoon your boss in front of your mates down the pub, but to post it on the internet in such clear and identifiable is just plain dumb!

I'm not agreeing with the things that he said, just lamenting the fact that he wasn't smart enough to say what he wanted and remain anonymous at the same time.

Sounds from the article like the guy fancied himself as a satirical commentator...shame that he comes off looking like a prat that got himself fired as a result of his big mouth.

it appears that he will be going to tribunal for unfair dismisal though.

Making comments regarding work in your private life (ie outside work and not to customers) is perfectly normal. He just happened to choose a medium that 'work' could easily access.
Would it be the same if his boss had overheard him in the pub?

It seems to me like they might have tried the approach of raising it with him and asking him to stop making derogatory comments, maybe even putting him on a written warning, but to dismiss him immediately seems like an overreaction.

No one likes to have their foibles pointed out to them, but calling them "Bastardstones" seems a little strong.

I wonder if a tribunal will give the bloke the decision he wants.

Does anyone know if what he wrote was grounds for libel action?

If that was the case then he might be getting off lightly with the sack.

I thought 'bringing the company into disrepute' was a clause in anybody's contract? :confused: Perhaps he should have stuck to the facts (and there seems to be plenty of them) and been careful to underline which parts were his own opinion? That should have kept him within the boundaries of the law. Wouldn't it?

You'd think that would be the case.

Originally posted by Strix
I thought 'bringing the company into disrepute' was a clause in anybody's contract? :confused: Perhaps he should have stuck to the facts (and there seems to be plenty of them) and been careful to underline which parts were his own opinion? That should have kept him within the boundaries of the law. Wouldn't it?

that's a very vague clause though, and so might not even be legal. Did he bring it into disrepute, that's probably a matter of opinion, and thus also grounds for an appeal.

I doubt he wrote anything libelous. Being a blog it should be obvious that anything he's writing is his opinion. As long as he didn't make up any outright lies.

"My evil spiky haired boss slapped me in the head today"

Then I think he's safe from libel.

A blog has no special protection from the laws of Libel.

If you write something that can be used to identify someone, and is viewed as being detrimental to the social standing, financial wellbeing, etc. of that person, and is incorrect, it's libellous.

The fact that more people DON'T get sued for libel is more to do with people being sensible and occasionally taking stuff against themselves in good humour than anything else.

As for bringing the company in to disrepute - this is where it gets interesting because it's usually viewed as 'behaviour that might bring the company in to disrepute in the eyes of the average, reasonable person' - the old 'man on the Clapham Omnibus' clause.

The guy should have expected some response from his employer, but perhaps the book shop did go over the top. And that 'disguised' name is not really disguising anything.

Joe

Originally posted by Carmine
Sounds from the article like the guy fancied himself as a satirical commentator...shame that he comes off looking like a prat that got himself fired as a result of his big mouth.

Hehe... I have to agree withyou there carmine :D

He obviously likes the attention - how on earth did the press find out about the minor sacking of a nobody? Hmmm, I wonder ;)

The line between genius and insaity is thin...the line between wit and prat is undefined and somewhat blurred!

you have to present as fact something that is wrong and detrimental.
If i say that I have a suspition that Tony Blair might be gay, that's not libel. If I say that in my opinion George W Bush is an idiot, even if it weren't true it wouldn't be libel.

There was a recent one in the press, Jimmy Nail won 'only' 30k damages from a national newspaper for printing a headline stating that he was gay and making up details about gay liasons. It was quite surprising in how small the damages were, but clearly libel due to the way they presented it.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
A blog has no special protection from the laws of Libel.

If you write something that can be used to identify someone, and is viewed as being detrimental to the social standing, financial wellbeing, etc. of that person, and is incorrect, it's libellous.

The fact that more people DON'T get sued for libel is more to do with people being sensible and occasionally taking stuff against themselves in good humour than anything else.

As for bringing the company in to disrepute - this is where it gets interesting because it's usually viewed as 'behaviour that might bring the company in to disrepute in the eyes of the average, reasonable person' - the old 'man on the Clapham Omnibus' clause.

The guy should have expected some response from his employer, but perhaps the book shop did go over the top. And that 'disguised' name is not really disguising anything.

Joe

This all seems a bit odd. I'm intrigued at the potential issues of this type for bloggers. After all, if people don't like your opinions then they don't have to visit your blog - it's not like they're forced to read it. The employers must have a) known about his blog and b) navigated to it.
That aside, I think they were reasonably fair in twice asking him to stop posting comments that they believe brought the company into disrepute before sacking him.

Originally posted by hotphil
This all seems a bit odd. I'm intrigued at the potential issues of this type for bloggers. After all, if people don't like your opinions then they don't have to visit your blog - it's not like they're forced to read it. The employers must have a) known about his blog and b) navigated to it.
That aside, I think they were reasonably fair in twice asking him to stop posting comments that they believe brought the company into disrepute before sacking him.

I was under the impression that they didn't do this.

According to the report on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4167629.stm - "I was informed (more than once) that this could cause my dismissal".