I suspect that you use very different language and behaviour in the classroom than you do in other walks of life, because you are a professional in a working environment.

I do, why, because its a professional working environment - I try to avoid swearing, making jokes about serial killers and offensive comments that I think can be funny, because its not professional.

Same applies here, the bloke is employed to do a professional job, and seems to think that includes a bit of knocking off his employees, making jokes related to peoples family and country of origin.

Kind of more that precedent in law tends to favour history of cases, rather than oh well men in the past. People are still judged, based on evidence of a case, and the criteria. As such, history of sexual harassment cases and the precedent, tends to be built on cases where women have experienced harassment and abuse, because of that's what the cases have been about - harassment, abuse and sexual offences against women, by men.

History doesn't do clean sheets, no matter how much you think it should, its a continual process. The criminality of the past ignored, is often born by the next generation solely because previous generations got away with so much for so long.

It's called being a human being and not a robot.

If multi culture means we all have to behave like robots, well white people anyway, then that is one more reason to reject it.

Perhaps because he didn't complain. The issue generally isn't people having relationships at work - its where they create problems at work.

I know you think the system is totally rigged against men, and to an extent it is, because historically they're the ones who have been the culprits in abusing their position at work and the primary cause of sexual harassment in the work place.

That said, when you sign up to a companies policy on work - you kind of are bound to maintain it. My guess would be that like most employers, they don't pursue cases based on what is reported to them, but where complaints are received.

Yeah, as a man you probably do have to be a bit more careful of what you say at work, and relationships you have, because you are more vulnerable, largely based on the history of problems that preceded you.

But it doesn't automatically entail that everyone is lying or manipulating situations to get to you either - To be held accountable, the balance of evidence has to be against you.

If you're the coach of a womans football team, you probably should be very careful about having sexual relationships with players - especially casual relationships.

I do kind of object to the idea that somehow the woman here is automatically in the wrong, because she's not thick skinned enough, can't take a joke or understand banter. The work place is a professional environment - you should be cautious about what you say on a personal level and you can be held accountable for people taking it 'the wrong way'.

That said, the FA seem to have taken this completely out of control of their own process and proceedings here - allowing to much specualation to form the basis of peoples opinions. These kind of things should be more open in terms of reporting, like other court cases.

I work with children and young teenagers mostly. When I work with adults I mostly say what I want to say. Not all jobs are the same.....I think your contention is way out of alignment with what is reasonable.

You agree with an eggshell environment for adults. I reject it. If someone is genuinely being harassed then a court of law should decide it. Whether I agree with the decision is up to me.

As for your...essentially 'sins of the fathers' legal argument presented as gender justification. Again, I completely disagree with you.

I'll also write a response to your 'alpha male' response at some point today as there are indirect echos with this case here which I feel are part of the problem with environments like this.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Oct 2017 1.40pm)

How exactly?

It is either racism or not. It is either an opportunity for politicians to bash the FA or not.
It is either something that someone dragged up when it suited them or not.

What I'm seeing here is people hiding behind their agendas and self interest regardless of the facts.
I guarantee that no one in football or public life will say what they really think. They are too afraid for their jobs or reputation. This is what we have come to in multi 'racial' Britain.

Such as in this case? A court of law did decide it.

Incidentally, why do children get a special pass. Is it only acceptable to be offended by something someone says if you are under the age of 16.

I don't think any teacher, or instructor, of any age should be having sex with their students (no matter how old they are).