Comments on: Orange PR blogger row grows

By: Stuart Bruce, BMA PR

Stuart Bruce, BMA PR — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:39:27 +0000

Darren, it's hardly "detective work" to spend 30 seconds to do a Google search. If you knew about the sensitivities and difficulties that mobile operators face when erecting masts then you wouldn't need to question how inappropriate Wilson's comments were. Jokes about consultation being about patronising people are inappropriate when people feel that is exactly what mobile operators are doing to them.

Even if you think people are being too sensitive (where I actually agree with you) it is irrelevant because even the most stupid PR person should have expected exactly that response.

The only three conclusions you can draw are that:

1) he didn't care that this would turn into a problem for his employer
2) he wasn't professional enough to understand what the result would be
3) he deliberately wanted to cause trouble and provoke a confrontation

Given his job, any of these three are grounds for suspension.

If he wasn't responsible for community relations then none of them would be grounds for suspension, so there is absolutely no risk of the same happening to others in non-PR roles.

By: Darren Enderby

Darren Enderby — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 12:16:35 +0000

Inigo's article does NOT identify Orange as his employer. Therefore nobody reading the Conservative Party's website, ConservativeHome, where it was posted (and which does not accept anonymous lead writers), would feel anger at Orange. Moreover, the indirectly-implied* views – including support for Israel and possible hositility to radical Islam – are nothing that a British subject wouldn't encounter regularly. I feel that the people purporting to take offence, are going out of their way to be offended, and to try to link that to Orange. It is because he has been discovered, indirectly and by detective work, to be an employee of Orange that they regard him as vulnerable. But if he goes, others even in non-PR roles will eventually not be able to make private blog posts that MPAC and similar organisations object to; even an anonymous post might be traceable by the TCP/IP address using detective work, and hence to an individual, hence to that person's employer and/or home address, just as Inigo was able to be traced to an employer he had not named.

* it is very hard to know what views Inigo may hold, as the views are implied in the form of an indirect negative "this is what I think lefties are saying or privately say or mean – including about the meaning of 'consultation' – and I disagree with it"

By: jummy

jummy — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:21:40 +0000

"It's revealing that most of those repeating Wilson's more offensive views have done so via email, rather than in the comments. Just for clarity I have not deleted any comments that support Wilson and will not do so. What I might do is edit them to remove racist, sexist, homophobic or similar language."

that is a good way to explain the abscence of any such commentary. makes you look noble, for real.

By: IanJGreen

IanJGreen — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:58:23 +0000

On politics and language go back to the master – read George Orwell's essays. All language is political because it is about power – ie the relationship between "him" and "her" or "us" and "them" or "black" and "white". Words should be used very carefully as, no doubt, Mr Wilson now understands.

By: jummy

jummy — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:48:32 +0000

rob skinner. yours is a false reasoning. wilson did not insult customers in the shop. wilson hung up his apron, traveled home, and delivered his opinions in a forum completely apart from his work. the thugs who are to properly be chastised here, are the ones who staked out his driveway, followed him to work the next day and attacked him there.

please, we will get nowhere if you continue to lie about this.

By: jummy

jummy — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:41:51 +0000

wilson expressed not a single "racist" view in his excellent and witty satire.

By: Sam Coates

Sam Coates — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:40:03 +0000

He hasn't expressed any extremist views, and we don't know the details of his job.

Next?

By: Simon Collister

Simon Collister — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:01:02 +0000

Rob

You have cut to the heart of the issue follwoing Stuart's lead.

As I posted (http://simoncollister.typepad.com/simonsays/2006/08/update_on_inigo.html) I don't think anyone is denying Inigo of his right to feedom of speech.

His employer is rightly deciding whether it wants to associate itself, its customers, brand values and all with Inigo's distasteful views…. which I'm sure it doesn't.

By: Simon Collister

Simon Collister — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:00:57 +0000

Rob

You have cut to the heart of the issue follwoing Stuart's lead.

As I posted (http://simoncollister.typepad.com/simonsays/2006/08/update_on_inigo.html) I don't think anyone is denying Inigo of his right to feedom of speech.

His employer is rightly deciding whether it wants to associate itself, its customers, brand values and all with Inigo's distasteful views…. which I'm sure it doesn't.

By: Rob Skinner

Rob Skinner — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:56:47 +0000

I agree with you, Stuart. Freedom of speech is a red herring here. It's what's appropriate in the circumstances that matters. Orange would, presumably, take an equally dim view of someone working in one of its shops who swore at customers. Yet no one would ask why Orange was taking away the assistant's freedom of speech.