No announcement yet.

Rana Reider under investigation

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Laps View Post
    (b) It is a distraction from what should be UKA's priorities
    Licencing of coaches is one of a governing bodies many responsibilities.


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sovietvest View Post
      Thanks for the reply, Laps. I'm increasingly starting to believe that if you and Gabriela actually had to adjudicate on a case, you'd end up reaching the same conclusions. All this noise about 'wokeism' just confuses matters. I see no evidence of wokeism in the Code of Conduct drawn up by UKA or in the actions they've taken. I see nothing in their code that could be described as nannying..As mentioned before, I think their 'crime' is typical NGB heavy-handed and coercive behaviour towards Gemili et al.

      By the way, regarding suspensions - I can only talk about how they are applied in an employment context but there are good reasons to deploying them. You're right - a suspension can lead to someone being unfairly tarnished. However, a failure to suspend someone in the light of a serious allegation leaves the organisation open to a legal claim by the complainant. The organisation can be accused - rightfully - of leaving other people open to being harrassed (or whatever the allegation is), by not temporarily removing the accused person.

      Despite all this noise about supposed wokeism, employers are operating under exactly the same laws they were in the 70s. All that's changed is that more women feel able to come forward with complaints. Inevitably that means there are more cases where a man is unfairly accused - there will always be a minority of such cases. Personally, I think that is a price worth paying as a society if it leads to less harassment against women. I have no doubt Laps and Philipo feel as angry about individual cases of injustice against women as they do about injustice against men. Like I say, I bet if we all knew all the facts in these cases, we'd end up drawing the same conclusions.
      (1) Judged from her two posts I think it is highly unlikely Gabriella and I would agree on this subject. Clearly two people with completely different life experiences and conclusions about the world and the direction in which it is heading.
      (2) I would suggest that the employment context is a complete red herring. All of the situations people have mentioned are different. Doctor/patient, teacher/student, coach/athlete, boss/employee.
      In this particular example of coach/athlete (Reider/Gemili etc) the adult athlete has a free choice of coach. If anything the coach is the employee. It is a partnership. No-one has power over the other. As the examples are different so will be the consequences. UKA tries to treat Gemili as an 'employee'. He rebuffs their interference. As far as the Reider example is concerned UKA have no horse in the race and look impotent. The only point of their actions perhaps to stave off criticism of inaction in some quarters. They license coaches but as most of our elite athletes are coached abroad and they are reliant on the athletes and coaches for medals what can they actually do?
      (3) Employers operating under the same laws as 1970s? Well the British Constitution is based on Acts of Parliament AND case law and as far as I am aware even when the legislation doesn't change case law can evolve to result in an entirely different legal environment. Which I think is true of employment law. I think your point is irrelevant.
      (4) Equality before the law is one of the equalities that absolutely must be in place. Personally I believe that sexual misconduct is being dealt with less effectively now than at any time I can recall. The cult of victimhood which exaggerates issues and emotionally demands satisfying whatever the merit, the blame culture which throws responsibility onto organisations ill suited to protecting anybody and the apparent inability of many females to protect themselves all contribute. No, I don't think that ruining innocent person's lives is a price worth paying.


      • #33
        Very fair ,balanced, and relevant response, Laps, and I am almost 100 per cent in agreement with the points you made in your
        This is a topic which is very closely connected to the culture wars raging in western societies right now and I am totally anti- woke. Wokeism is divisive, extremist, destructive, not progressive, but intolerant and dangerous. The left in europe seems to imagine they have are fighting for a better society. Glad to see the French are reacting strongly against the dreadful tide of wokeism, very much an unwanted import from the academics in the USA.