The sorry tale of the daft banker, the gay couple and a note
A bank worker is facing the sack for scribbling an insulting while non too unamusing note on an application form made by a gay couple.
Ronnie Hillman, 20 and his boyfriend Rob Wade, 19 saw the note, which read: "Ronnie is a very, very nice boy. Watch your back." when they went into their local NatWest to open a joint account.
The couple rightly demanded to see the manager of the branch in Leyland, Lancashire and are now considering legal action.
Very nice Ronnie went on to say: "It's not simply a gay issue. What are staff saying about fat people, the disabled or elderly?"
I’d hazard a guess and say that -- people being people -- some of the staff may have the same attitude to all those of sufficient physical, mental or sexual scewifedness.
Personally, I find this highly amusing, but that’s not to deny there’s a serious side to this.
On the one hand, if you’re gay, you can expect this type of thing, so I think these guys are taking matters a little too far.
Getting the staffer sacked is about right. No matter what the humour value of this numpty notation, to write his thoughts out on the damn application to be paraded around in front of everyone, not least the applicants as well as senior staff is just plain stupid.
You can’t hope to sanitize people’s thoughts in this way.
After all, when would ‘correct-thinking’ end and social censorship begin?
Many people don’t enjoy their jobs and humour aimed at those either less fortunate or significantly different to yourself is just human nature and a way of passing the time.
There’s a lesson to be learned, here .. damned if I know what it is...
posted by Wayne Smallman at Thursday, March 24, 2005
37 Comments:
Perhaps he is being sacked for misuse of official documents... :D
hmmm, the lesson is, write in code!
Oh!
So what you're saying is, you condone his actions and that your advice is that in future, should anyone wish to denigrate customers, they should be more discrete?
I am appalled, Zu...
"the lesson is, write in code!"
A wink and a nod would do! Just kidding... but I think he should have been penalized/suspended for a few days, but sacking him is a bit extreme, esp. if it is a first offense.
I don't think I'd like denegrating comments on my record either, in any way. As they (should) have a right to see anything held about them by the bank (not sure if the data protection act covers this, but it should), then they should also have a right to have unfairly negative and/or prejudicial remarks removed from that record.
If you're a communist/nazi/gay/radical/jew/muslim.... etc. you name it - the 'establishment' might have reasons for suspecting you, and/or keeping track of you (it's been done before, and is probably still being done somewhere by somebody).
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!
That's just wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
But lets be a bit honest here...it's not like the employee wrote, "Heads up - this guy's gay!" or any other various "worse" things that could have been said.
I'm not saying it's ok, just that it could have been much worse!!! If one of my employees did this I'd kick their ass! Then I'd put them on probabation, re-train them in discrimination and require them to send a personal apology to the customer.
Fire!?!?!? That may be a bit extreme, but you know what? Sometimes the choice is left out of your hands and the company itself demands it. They'd rather lose an idiot of an employee than a customer.
I don't think the bank had much of a choice but to give the guy the heave-ho!
Any large, institutionalized business or organization must be seen to be above this kind of nonsense.
To not fire him would be -- at least in the eyes of some special interest groups -- as much as condoning his comments.
Still funny, though!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think you're right, the bank had to sack him to at least appear to be doing the right thing, in the same way that politicians kiss babies and visit hospitals, because if they don't appear to care then they (believe they will) become unpopular.
I think the lesson is "don't have an opinion"! Sad, but reflected in the prevailing and increasing apathy amongst the young.
"On the one hand, if you’re gay, you can expect this type of thing, so I think these guys are taking matters a little too far."
Yes, and fat people should expect notes in their bank files saying "Watch your sandwich", and Jewish people should expect notes in their bank files saying "Watch your pockets", and black people should expect notes in their bank files saying "Watch your pockets", and suing the bastards is taking matters a little too far.
Also, "sufficient sexual scewifedness"??
Dude!
I'm not idealizing; you're over-analyzing.
The point of my post is that expecting things is no reason to accept them.
Whoa, what happened to your reply?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hi Emi, and thanks for posting!
"Yes, and fat people should expect notes in their bank files saying "Watch your sandwich", and Jewish people should expect notes in their bank files saying "Watch your pockets", and black people should expect notes in their bank files saying "Watch your pockets", and suing the bastards is taking matters a little too far."
And all being fair and reasonable points, which I'm sure no one will contest, especially me.
But you're making that one leap of thought, that while being a valiant one, is ultimately a flawed endeavor and doomed to failure -- you're idealizing.
"You can’t hope to sanitize people’s thoughts in this way.
After all, when would ‘correct-thinking’ end and social censorship begin?"
Not all people have the same set of values.
I'm quite tall, well over six foot, so I'm constantly descriminated against because of my size.
And the less said about my second name, the better.
We live in what is a permissive and open society, if that's the way that you prefer it, then you accept the rough with the smooth.
If you want a society that does not allow people to harbour such thoughts and is in turn not as permissive, then you will find that the lives of everyone will be measurably restricted, both in thought and deed.
In short, we do not live in an ideal world...
I've been having problems posting this morning, and Blogger was kicking up errors.
Above is the original article in it's entirety .. minus a spelling mistake!
"I'm not idealizing; you're over-analyzing."
Really?
So, in your opinion, I'm either not giving fare due to all and sundry, or I'm bringing a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
No pleasing some, is there?
I might concede to over-analyzing, but that still doesn't alter the fact that I'm right, does it?
I'm afraid you are idealizing, you're just don't know it, that's all.
The fact is -- and emphasize that word: 'fact' -- people have a right to their own opinions.
Neither you nor me have the right to chide them, so long as their opinions don't come out into the open and unfairly harm anyone.
In this case they did.
The guy is going to get the sack for his abject stupidity and crass, 'witty' comments.
The couple move along and find what they're looking for at some other bank.
Problem solved.
Clearly you believe that I'm rooting for the idiot at the bank.
If so, then I implore you to read through the article again without casting the shadow of your prejudgement over my what I'm saying...
Who said anything about the thought police?
The bank clerk retains the right to his opinions.
However, the gay couple also retains the right to sue their bank for intolerance and violation of privacy.
Further, all rights are not equivalent. Tolerance is a universal human right that takes precedence over lesser rights.
"So, in your opinion, I'm either not giving fare due to all and sundry, or I'm bringing a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
"
I find this indecipherable, and not because of the mixed metaphors.
"I might concede to over-analyzing, but that still doesn't alter the fact that I'm right, does it?"
How is your opinion factual and correct?
"I'm afraid you are idealizing, you're just don't know it, that's all."
Sorry, but I know my head from my ass.
"The fact is -- and emphasize that word: 'fact' -- people have a right to their own opinions."
People also have rights to privacy and tolerance. In courts of law, as in ethics circles, these rights are held to be more important than opinion rights.
"Neither you nor me have the right to chide them, so long as their opinions don't come out into the open and unfairly harm anyone."
You are being inconsistent. Either "people have a right to their own opinions", or "neither you nor me [sic] have the right to chide [which is an opinion]".
"Clearly you believe that I'm rooting for the idiot at the bank."
Nope.
"If so, then I implore you to read through the article again without casting the shadow of your prejudgement over my what I'm saying..."
I formed my opinion from reading the entirity of your post and the comments following. You're not as bigoted as the bank clerk, but neither are you above calling the story "highly amusing" and "funny" or implying that homosexuality is "sexual scewifedness".
Look, I laugh at gay jokes too. I just don't laugh at the homophobic ones.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I laugh at many things, not least being the two of us to falling out over the most trivial issues when in fact .. we're bloody well in agreement!
It's Saturday, for goodness sake!
OK, let's put a thought into motion. Let's imagine I'm 'very, very nice!' Ronnie. I see this note, I'm not happy about it.
I demand to see the member of staff. To facilitate this, I become very loud very publicly.
I tear a strip off the little prick, I point out that his rank idiocy has lost them my custom and I get the fuck out of there quick sharp.
With any luck, anyone else in the bank will think twice about keeping their money there and may even switch banks.
What I don't do is...
Get all litigious, costing me a fortune both in time, effort and mental health.
Have my name plastered in all the major tabloids.
End up with pink spray on my car, a brick through my house window, dog shit through my letter box and the chance of a good kicking the next time I go out for a social drink.
See were you idealizing gets you? Best part of six hours in the infirmary and sixty stitches, carpet cleaning bill, two coats of paint on the car and a new front window.
Question is: is it all worth it?
Probably not.
Hey Emi. I would like you to stick around.
I do like a good battle with someone .. but not at the weekend and especially when England play Northern Ireland in a World Cup qualifier and the new series of Doctor Who starts tonight.
I'm feeling a little tense, to say the least!
Either you can have a scrounge around my 'blog or wait until next week when I post up some golden oldies.
I'd like to see what you think...
And of course, there's another side to this.
I'd say that Ronnie and partner are cynically exploiting this situation and using the now terrified libel laws to their own ends.
Let's face it, these guys are going to win, why not win fame as well as fortune?
Being a soccer fan, you'll be familiar with the slogan "sometimes you gotta take one for the team".
Whatever their reasons, I say more power to Ron and Ronnie for taking one for the team.
A lawsuit is not Stonewall or a pride march, but it's still a worthy gesture. If R&R fall victim to further acts of intolerance and hate, well, it will only underscore how intolerant and hateful this society still is.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that a social system that exploits its members deserves to be exploited by its members, but I can't say that I have any sympathy for that system.
What goes around, comes around.
"A lawsuit is not Stonewall or a pride march, but it's still a worthy gesture. If R&R fall victim to further acts of intolerance and hate, well, it will only underscore how intolerant and hateful this society still is."
Exactly!
The trick to beating any system is knowing when to aggress and when to recede.
In this case, the line is quite fine. To fine for me at least.
You can't be too unfair on society. Many mental contraptions have survival value .. while some do not, unfortunately.
We live, we learn...
‘The trick to beating any system is knowing when to aggress and when to recede.’
Should write a song about it. Maybe there could be a line about what degree of exercise should be put into ones recession?
It's not about beating any system. It's more like treating some kind of a social sickness. The joke was in poor taste and unacceptable. Your response (raising a smile, and the belief that this sort of thing is to be expected) is also unacceptable. If I thought I couldn't help you up, I wouldn't say anything. Okay?
"The joke was in poor taste and unacceptable."
Agreed.
And from the beginning, that was always the point that I was making.
"Your response (raising a smile, and the belief that this sort of thing is to be expected) is also unacceptable."
That's not what made me smile.
And the fact that you arrived at that conclusion is a little sad.
And as for your lamentable holier-than-thou attitude, that is unacceptable.
But seeing as though it's you, I'll let it go this once.
"If I thought I couldn't help you up, I wouldn't say anything. Okay?"
Man, if I needed your help, I'd be no better than either bank clerk or you.
But seeing as though I'm probably worth two of the bank clerk and three of you.
You have my sympathy.
If you're hoping to pick a fight, then you're on the wrong side of being the winner, my friend.
Move along now before I re-post the racist article you so promptly removed...
Oh man, you can't seriously be claiming to take the upper hand when your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies.
First of all, who are you directing your comment to?
The lovably Ricki or myself?
I'm not sure where / what / when you're referring to upperhandedness [sic].
In need specificity.
If it's me, you don't seriously expect me to read through that lot, do you?
Summarize your issue, then let the dog see the rabbit .. so to speak.
Hopefully by summertime, this article will have died down enough to think about planning a holiday...
Let me see now...
Let's recap what I took to be clues that you were homophobic:
• ‘insulting while non too unamusing note’
• ‘Very nice Ronnie went on to say’
• ‘some of the staff may have the same attitude to all those of sufficient physical, mental or sexual scewifedness.’
• ‘Personally, I find this highly amusing’
• ‘if you’re gay, you can expect this type of thing, so I think these guys are taking matters a little too far.’
• ‘You can’t hope to sanitize people’s thoughts in this way.’
• ‘social censorship’
• ‘humour aimed at those either less fortunate or significantly different to yourself is just human nature’
• ‘To not fire him would be -- at least in the eyes of some special interest groups -- as much as condoning his comments.’
• ‘Still funny, though!’
Hope that clarifies my position. If I remember correctly, what I said was something along the lines of the English being fifty years behind the rest of the world in their attitudes towards discrimination.
Some of those attitudes I commonly encounter are: that it might be illegal to make jokes rooted in discrimination, but it's still damned funny; and that being female, black, gay or religious is akin to being disabled, because it's disadvantageous, but still, it's a matter of choice because women could make ‘housewife’ their career, black people can ‘go back’, gay people can jolly well stop it, and religious people can just toe the Anglican-Catholic line. If only they became more normal and didn't complain when we have our little jokes, then there wouldn't be all this trouble, would there?
You claim I read you wrong, and if that's the case, I'm glad I did, because what you wrote (and have written subsequently) doesn't give any clues that you're anything other than a typical little Englander. The way you call me ‘racist’ only confirms that impression: crying ‘victim’ when your sick traditions are criticised.
Well, well, well...
Ricki, take a long deep breath and enhance your calm.
If you weren't so hopelessly wrong in your every utterance, I'd admire your determination.
Bigotry is an insidious character flaw that can squirrel itself away in the deepest recesses of human psyche.
And you my strange friend are by no means an exception.
I believe you're an American living in England, and I think it's about time you starting showing a little more respect towards your host.
If you are an American, then I'm guessing you've been watching most British comedy with a mixture of horror and shock .. such is your inability to grasp irony that you are stricken by your literal grasp of what you see, read an hear.
THAT is what I found amusing about the purpose of this story.
Do not for a second even think that you are going to convince me or anyone else that you are some kind moral & ethical guardian, you yawn-inducing, irksome little man.
When was the last time you stood up in front of a bunch of drunken football fans to remind them that when they've finished slagging off black footballers, they ought to remember they're the ones they pay to go and see every weekend?
Man, the only time you'd stand up to counted is when you're waiting to pick your Prozac proscription.
This is the really, real world, Ricki-boy!
I believe the American vernacular is 'wake up and smell the coffee!'
To hear you talk, Ronnie and his partner are all sweetness and light, when in all likelihood, they're going to turn this whole thing into a fuckin' three-ring circus to squeeze every last penny out of the bank.
And for what?
There are bigger issues in life than to pursue some dick head making a brain-dead, off-hand remark, to which he will be rightly punished with a P45.
I meet people like you all of the time. I know you better than you know yourself.
You don't have your own opinions, you get them second-hand off your friends, you read them in some 'right on' magazine or you hear them in the lyric of some feckless protest song.
If on the odd occasion some opinion happened to pop into your head, you'd be too afraid to make it known for fear of your imagining not being fashionable in some way, or incurring ridicule among your peers.
If only you knew me, you would realize how utterly and spectacularly wrong you are.
I spend my life cutting through armies of those like you like a freight train.
You are the Issues and the Artful Dodgers of this world.
You're the bureaucracy, the flimflam and the insincere outrage blocking common sense and reason at every turn.
I will extend you one last chance to get your act together and stop being a prick.
This will be your second chance. There will not be a third.
If you choose to continuing being a prick, your every post will be deleted.
Here endeth the second lesson...
"We live in what is a permissive and open society, if that's the way that you prefer it, then you accept the rough with the smooth."
This is an either-or fallacy, or a false dilemma. There are choices other than 1) living in an open anything-goes society, and 2) living in a fascist state.
"If you want a society that does not allow people to harbour such thoughts and is in turn not as permissive, then you will find that the lives of everyone will be measurably restricted, both in thought and deed."
This is a stawman set-up. My argument for the gay couple was not an argument for the thought police.
There are other examples (Ad hominem, for one), but like you I don't have the time for them. :o)
Clearly we're wandering way .. way off track, here.
I don't have a degree in psychology, so I'll assume either you do, or you have a least a much firmer grasp than I do.
Choosing that as the basis for the rest of this discussion, you're first point quickly implodes when I apply this simple, real-world analogy:
I could tell you to go away in a very insulting tone. Indeed, I could tell anyone to go away in a very insulting tone. So long as that abuse isn't followed by me giving you a fat lip into the bargain, no harm done.
That's the rough with the smooth.
That's a permissive society.
That's the world we share.
The ideal world wouldn't permit this. To not permit this, there would have to be measures put in place to prevent this.
Assuming the required level of education has not been met with, with which to stymie such foul outbursts, then there must at least be a mechanism or a device of law to restrict such actions.
That takes us dangerously close the fascist state and you remove my right to freedom of expression.
To know what is implicitly right and what is just plain wrong, you may notice that I don't need a degree in psychology...
Logical fallacies are errors of reasoning. They invalidate an argument or parts of an argument. They have nothing to do with psychology (except of course when they are used in an argument pertaining to psychology).
This is not about you vs. me, this is about having a fair argument and coherent conversation.
You're a right one, aren't you? Your poor judgement about myself and Emi should highlight to you how pathetic your reasoning skills are:
• not Ricki
• not American
• no TV
• no magazines
• no slightly soiled opinions
• no psychology degree
Freight trains are slow and loud and they stink. They often get shunted from the rear. And finally, by implication, you admire my determination. Thank you, goodnight, and keep trying.
u sad sad people that u have to sit there and discuss me and tell me weather ime in the right or wrong i dont care what u all think of me so get a life the lot of u!!
Ronnie Hillman
i meant to say whether sorry!!
"i meant to say whether sorry!!"
That's what happens when you post first and think later.
If you are indeed Ronnie, be glad for your moment of fame.
That moment has now passed...
Post a Comment
<< Home