“Many homosexual males would have found the comments made by Mr Gray offensive. The tribunal is not condoning Mr Gray’s behaviour,” Judge Kearsley said.
“Equally many women would have found the comments about their underwear on the chiller offensive.
“But we have considered the character of the claimant and the absence of any complaint during the period of employment.”
He continued: “The tribunal doesn’t accept that Mr Gray made any comments that were particularly capable of constituting harassment.
================================================================
This judge must be a homophobe. Faggot is what they yell when they are kicking us to death its THE homophobic insult. Its just the same as calling an African N****r or an Asian P**i and if Mr Gray had used N****r or P**i the judge would of ruled against him and awarded additional compensation for the racism. What this judge has ruled is its not illegal to be homophobic to your employees and set a dangerous president. David Kearsley’s ruling needs to be challenged in the court of appeal as he has effectively re-written employment law.
LOL@Brian. Jeez, you can get an awful lot of sequins for thirty grand!
On a serious note, I thought the man’s treatment was appalling, and this is the sort of homophobia that really needs to be stamped out, rather than tittle-tattling journos like Jan Moir.
I’m pleased the courts have come out in his favour and he has a nice Christmas present, but more to the point, it may demonstrate to other employers not to take anti-gay comments by their staff lightly, or they could not only get a bad reputation, but it might find it seriously damages their finances in the process.
My reading of the article is that the tribunal found he had been ‘unfairly dismissed’, but had not been treated in a homobhobic manner. As a previous commenter said, what the hell does the word ‘faggot’, said to an employee constitute?
I’m pleased for him and his £30,000, but this ruling was WRONG and needs challenging. As previously said, this tribunal is attempting to re-write employment law!
These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous please click "Report" or email us. Terms and Conditions · Privacy Policy
£30,000 will buy some new Drag my dear and with knobs on!
“Many homosexual males would have found the comments made by Mr Gray offensive. The tribunal is not condoning Mr Gray’s behaviour,” Judge Kearsley said.
“Equally many women would have found the comments about their underwear on the chiller offensive.
“But we have considered the character of the claimant and the absence of any complaint during the period of employment.”
He continued: “The tribunal doesn’t accept that Mr Gray made any comments that were particularly capable of constituting harassment.
================================================================
This judge must be a homophobe. Faggot is what they yell when they are kicking us to death its THE homophobic insult. Its just the same as calling an African N****r or an Asian P**i and if Mr Gray had used N****r or P**i the judge would of ruled against him and awarded additional compensation for the racism. What this judge has ruled is its not illegal to be homophobic to your employees and set a dangerous president. David Kearsley’s ruling needs to be challenged in the court of appeal as he has effectively re-written employment law.
LOL@Brian. Jeez, you can get an awful lot of sequins for thirty grand!
On a serious note, I thought the man’s treatment was appalling, and this is the sort of homophobia that really needs to be stamped out, rather than tittle-tattling journos like Jan Moir.
I’m pleased the courts have come out in his favour and he has a nice Christmas present, but more to the point, it may demonstrate to other employers not to take anti-gay comments by their staff lightly, or they could not only get a bad reputation, but it might find it seriously damages their finances in the process.
My reading of the article is that the tribunal found he had been ‘unfairly dismissed’, but had not been treated in a homobhobic manner. As a previous commenter said, what the hell does the word ‘faggot’, said to an employee constitute?
I’m pleased for him and his £30,000, but this ruling was WRONG and needs challenging. As previously said, this tribunal is attempting to re-write employment law!
RobN, Too right mate, I’m sure you are a Prince in disguise!
I know this is off topic but am I the only one who thinks Mr Awford has psycho eyes?
Abi1975: I’m here and I’m listening…and I agree, except that 30,000 just ain’t enough; I would go for 300,000 and then some.