This was discussed on LBC last week. He posted clips of a Billy Connolly sketch (the end of religion) but it was because he had ASDA in his profile which breached company policy. It appears that somebody complained about it (strange to begin with) but even stranger is that ASDA sell the DVD that he posted a clip from that led to his dismissal.
Well that's my understanding but Dales Tyke says it was for a different reason. We just don't know what.......
That's what they will argue - public v private, etc but it seems a massive overreaction and grossly sensitive of ASDA to sack him. Just my opinion.
Yes at my invitation, she eventually came back to the Club with her parents. She had confessed to her Mum what she had been up to. She had apparently been egging the bloke on with some pretty racy stuff, without thinking of the possible consequences. She was genuinely shaken by the ordeal, which she acknowledged she had brought upon herself. We had two computers in the Club and following the incident none of the members went on any social media sites, because Wakefield Mets computer staff blocked them. What had set out as " a laugh" for the girl and her mates, eventually led to them to be really scared for their safety.
Like I said to a previous poster I don't disagree with what your saying. But the policies are explained to you in the induction, you are reminded of the policies of a fairly regular basis and you agree to the policies when you sign the contract. The person who gave me my induction explained it to us this way. If you have to think for more than 5 seconds about if, what you are about to post might get you in trouble, then post a picture of what you had for tea instead
It's the same for most companies I would imagine. I know we have a social media policy and we're strongly advised not to post anything that identifies the company as it could lead to dismissal. I have a FB account which I read from time to time but I think I have only ever posted once or twice in about ten years and that's exactly how things will stay. It's too easy to offend people or fall foul of some or other policy. The worst aspect for me is that somebody was actually offended enough to have reported him. I can't begin to understand how sensitive somebody must be to be so offended by the sketch.
Apologies for not responding immediately. Life eh..... it just gets in the way of the BBS sometimes. He was sacked for breach of contract. He might not have liked that contract in which case a) he shouldn’t have agreed to it or b) he should work for someone else. Social media policies are par for the course these days. Incidentally, I loved the even handed reporting. “ Fifty four year old disabled grandfather..”. Three facts in that short intro - all irrelevant to the story. There’s a Sun reporter of the future in there.
Bit liberal with the semantics there. Aren't all reporters guilty of a bit hyperbole? It would have been interesting to see how the Guardian reported it but it didn't fit their agenda.
Obsessed with the guardian not picking up this nothing story- yet you had to post a link to ‘Somerset Live’ reporting on a story in Dewsbury. Ps I’m not interested in if it has appeared in other papers as the story of ‘man breaches contract with more that we likely don’t know’ is irrelevant to the national discourse
As we only have the guys side of the story I wouldn't take this as the whole truth. How many people do you know that have been sacked and honestly held their hands up that they deserved it? I would speculate it was more than one post on Facebook that cost him his job. Perhaps he had previous warnings for his social media use or other behaviour in the workplace? Perhaps the post itself was more targeted than he lets on. Although the post on its own seems fairly innocent, would you think the same if he for tagged a Muslim co worker and posted a provocative message directed at them alongside it?