Orange Responds

94 comments:

Anonymous said...

Firstly, they are a company free to fire anyone they want if it's going to affect their business adversely. Secondly, as long as he's not doing it in their name he can write whatever he wants given point number one.

The fact that it was stultifyingly dull is, I would think, a good reason for firing him however.

Anonymous said...

I have another entry for his lexicon:

Knee-Jerk (n): A presumtion that anything that offends somebody else is in its nature wrong, misplaced or in some other way incorrect
also see rash assumption (n)

NoJags Neil said...

"Dear Sir,

As a passionate secularist, I find the fact that you employ "believers" threatening and deeply offensive to my beliefs. I demand that you sack them all immediately."

Matt Dean said...

Dangerous times indeed when an empoyee can't write a spoof article on a political website without being suspended.
I note the article did not bring Orange, their staff or products into disrepute.
www.MattDeanSoton.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Whooah, Orwellian-dude. You make a bad joke on a website that few care about and before you know it, you're suspended from work and a photo showing your chubby cheeks is displayed to the world. Does Stewart Jackson drink better coffee than us?

JimJam said...

Firstly, they are a company free to fire anyone they want if it's going to affect their business adversely.

And as a customer I'm free to leave them for another provider.

Guido Fawkes Esq. said...

We should all be free to fire embarrassing employees, free to switch our custom, free to boycott companies we dislike.

This is a non-governmental issue. Not requiring legislation or state intervention.

Looks possible that, rightly or wrongly, both Muslims and Tories will boycott them...

mirthios said...

Have reminded Orange that the Women's Institute has more paid up members than the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.

Offend them at your peril!!

shergar said...

"well , when we threaten to advertise his statements across all islamic media outlets, both hear and abroad. I doubt he will have his job for much longer"

This is probably the provenance of the campaign to oust this person. Lions of islam with too much time on their hands.

http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?p=166629#post166629

Rog said...

Should Mr Wilson get the sack, then I WILL be choosing another communications provider. And advising everybody else to do the same.

Vt said...

for a "community spokesman" he wasn't doing his job !

shergar said...

sorry. posted without reading. spike spike spike

James Schneider said...

Dear Mr Jackson,

I am writing to you after discovering the suspension of your employee, Inigo Wilson. I regularly visit conservativehome, not because I am a Tory but because it interests me. I read Wilson's piece at the time: I found it irritating, incorrect, and to be taken with a fat lump of salt. To be insulted by it requires a sense of humour failure. Regardless of my opinions on its relative offence, people were upset. They should take this up with Mr Wilson. He is contactable through conhome. However, they did not, they took it up with his employer, Orange. He was suspended because customers found his private writing offensive.
I find your actions offensive. Where is our free speach? What ever happenned to a life outwith the work place? Wilson did not write the piece as an Orange representative but as an individual and a member of the (in my opinion) unpleasant wing of the Tory party.
It appears that the only way to battle the idiotic suspension is to regester my complaint. I find the company's actions offensive. It seems you have three choices: suspend the company (or the official responsable for Wilson's suspension) due to my offence, reinstate him, or sack him. Only the first two options are acceptable (and the first is obviously idiotic).

Guido is on your case.

The ball is in your court.

Regards,

James Schneider (ex-customer)

Patrick H said...

Orange considering sacking their daft PR guy for putting his foot in his mouth with a PR gaffe of rather large proportions?

Good on 'em. That's what I'd do.

Matt Davis said...

Perhaps Guido but at least the Tories will be doing so for the right reason. MPACUK are purveyors of vile racist filth and I would have hoped that Orange might have at least had a look at their website before deciding that they were an organisation to be taken notice of.

Fred said...

Sent to Orange on behalf of our companies account with them:-

Stuart,

If you bow to this pressure our next contract will not be with Orange.

Get a bloody life and sense a of perspective. I spend enough time having to brave London with the Islamic Fundie threat and anyone who can lighten the mood is fine by me.So if you keep the 'offended' muslim customers you lose our custom.

Kind regards

Guido Fawkes Esq. said...

Ironically, regrettably, if he worked for me in that kind of a position, methinks Guido would probably have fired him.

Maggie Thatcher fan said...

Guido, On a point of fairness, should you not have said , "Those of you who are offended or conversely wish to support Inigo Wilson should e mail etc etc

The jabberwock said...

maggie thatcher fan 5:49 PM.

perhaps you should change your call sign to "Dhimmi wannabe 00,000,001" (to allow for up to 60 million wannabe dhimmi's, which seems to cover most of the population of this ex-country).

Anonymous said...

But Guido, the fact remains that he didn't bring Orange into it, it was the McCarthyite inquisitors at MPAC and their fellow travellers who did that. They made it an issue to silence dissent.

Anonymous said...

Mr Jackson is not a very savvy Head of Media relations on this evidence.

Surely he should have come out with some statement about Orange being an equal opportunities company blah blah, about employing people of all colours , creeds, sexual orientation, blah blah, what employees do in their own time blah blah, Mr Wilson was expressing personal views blah blah, and how everyone at Orange is committed to providing excellent service (yawn) to subscribers.

Job done.

Although, on second thoughts it might be necessary to exclude the bit about sexual orientation because if Orange cave in on this one, the next letter full of righteous indigation will be demanding the sacking of all gays.

While in edit mode, it may be prudent to exclude the bit about equal opportunities as well because another cause for complaint will be the ungodly habit of employing women.

who knows said...

wise sentiments from Mr Fawkes...


"Looks possible that, rightly or wrongly, both Muslims and Tories will boycott them..."


"Ironically, regrettably, if he worked for me in that kind of a position, methinks Guido would probably have fired him."

Anonymous said...

Guido - stop being a moral relevatist. If, in 1938, someone in the PR dept. of the Post Office wrote, in a private capacity, slagging off the nazis would you sack them at the behest of Oswald Mosley?

Inigo didn't mention Orange in his amusing and mild article. The grievance-mongering trash at MPAC went hunting for that info.

Orange are corporatist cowards. They are running scared before a PC onslaught and may even be scared of being bombed (gutless creeps).

The kind of Muslims who might boycott Orange over this are the kind who prefer pay-as-you-go phones for use as detonators to blow up innocent women and children. Decent ones wouldn't get involved.

The truth is that Guido would tell the terrorist-loving cocksucker to go fuck themselves. He's just trying to appear 'evenhanded' - always a mistake when Islamofascist scum are concerned.

greenham woman said...

Off topic, but its bothering me...Guido, where is Lord Levy? Has he skipped bail?

Anonymous said...

I take it Orange will be blocking internet access to 'Time Trumpet' because some of that material may offend some sensitive people ?

Anonymous said...

Pa must read this site. The story is now running on Press Association wires.

NoJags Neil said...

"Looks possible that, rightly or wrongly, both Muslims and Tories will boycott them..."

Hang on just a minute.... what about the secularists?

garypowell said...

Guido
I have lived to long not to pay attention to thin ends of large wedges.

Read something about the crazy illiberal ways that nazi loving socialists like Henry Ford used to run their staffs lives. Do you or anybody else really want to go down that road?

If I ran the company I would understand that Stewart Jacksons incompetance had done my company far more harm, and would be sacking him.

However if it is in Mr Wilsons work contract that he says "jack s..." to any public media, I would be sacking them both. Maybe the manageing director should sack himself for not making sure it was in Wilsons contract.

Anonymous said...

I dunno; I think this is fair enough. Someone's made the connection is Islam and violence. I don't see that connection. As someone who remembers how it was in the 1980s with regard to Catholicism and the IRA, I know how easy but short-sighted it can be to associate the actions of individuals who groups together under a banner who soil the association of others (just look at the Neo-Cons)! So let's not be so simplistic with our expression and can we use another word other than "Islamists" to describe people who wish to act violently against innocents? It's a lazy use of the English language, or any other language to be frankly honest.

Anonymous said...

Seeing the comments and writing style on that Platform page has anyone else noticed that Athena Murphy and Meredith Magor are one and the same person? Do all lefties have an identity crisis or just the vindictive ones? In fact it looks like "You've been tangoed" could be the same person too. Wilson doesn't deserve the sack.

Danger said...

Whether Guido would have fired him or not is not the question. I think that freedom of speech should be guarded and I do not want people to be sacked for voicing opinions that are not politically correct, nor for publishing weak satire. I think that that makes me part of the civilised part of society--I hope, the civilised majority. The question of whether or not Mr. Wilson is sacked comes down to economic and moral power. Orange, and, in Orange's shoes, Guido, fear that the economic and moral power of various sections of the public will be used against them on account of Mr. Wilson's comments, so are inclined to suspend, and probably sack, Mr. Wilson. If the civilised can counter-attack with more economic and moral force, we will change the situation that Orange faces and, one hopes, tip the balance in favour of Mr. Wilson. So Guido is quite justified in calling for people to email Orange about this.

That said, Wilson seems to me to be a bit of a tory-boy, so I'll feel a certain satisfaction if he's saved in the name of free speech and then sacked for being a nerk.

El Cid said...

They should change their name to YELLOW.

Anonymous said...

they'll investigate him and reinstate him, thereby ultimately satisfying to some degree all the idiots involved.

Cinnamon said...

Guido is correct when he states that the company should be able to fire him -- it is a free world and if I disagree with someone, I should be entitled to be able to avoid them. However that is not really relevant here. The problem is this:

What Orange is not entitled to do is to suspend (and shame) him publicly, destroy his good name (and future employment prospects).

If they just wanted to sack him, this can be done quietly. There is no need for a public lynching in order to satisfy the religious hatemonger mob.

Now, for anyone thinking of taking up employment with Orange this also is relevant -- no way would I ever want to work for a company that has no compunction in destroying my life and putting my family at a direct risk by terrorists -- Mr. Wilson will probably be receiving deaththreats by now already, given who is involved in this campaign against him.

Prentiz said...

Have just recieved the following email from Stuart Jackson:
Dear Prentiz

Thanks for your mail.

To clarify, the suspension of an employee is not intended to imply that the employee in question has done wrong. It is a neutral act that allows us to conduct a full investigation and reach a conclusion based on facts. I will gladly update you regarding the outcome of the investigation.

Kind regards,

Stuart


It certainly is to Orange's credit that he has responded quickly and personally - I will update here should anything else be forthcoming.

Anonymous said...

Wilson's last paragraph starts '...the first thing to do is recognise it for what it is.'

Shame he didn't follow on with a 'but why is it there in the first place?'

Anonymous said...

...and out you come the other end! I'm afraid this falls under the heading "What did you think was going to happen?" They watch, they wait, they cry 'victim' and what can you do when the system gives them leave to do it.

Shoulda tried it out at Edinburgh first...hear you can get away with anything there...

Anonymous said...

If you want to move your business away from Orange, or any other mobile operator for that matter, you should first obtain a Port Authorisation Code (PAC). This will enable you to transfer your existing number to your new mobile operator. A PAC is valid for 30 days.

Anonymous said...

Poor Stuart - looks like he's going to have a full inbox tomorrow:

Stuart,

It would seem that Orange have caved into orchestrated pressure from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK) and suspended an Employee for an article they wrote on an independent website.

According to wikipedia MPACUK was the subject of a no-platform order by the National Union of Students in 2004, because of its anti-Zionist,anti-Semitic, and homophobic rhetoric.

MPACUK see it as some sort of victory now this employee is now suspended - this is a quote from one of their blogs:

'News just in, he has been suspended.
This is fantastic news and a major coupe for everyone on this forum!
Just shows what Muslims can do when they act intelligently.
We do not need to resort to violence when addressing issues of Islamophobia.'

As an Orange business customer I find this worrying, and not a partnership I particularly want to be part of. I am therefore seeking PACs for all my Orange numbers and will be moving these to another operator as soon as I can arrange.

Regards

Pikullos said...

Once again that quote attributed to Voltaire is appropriate: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"...

Fred said...

Got this reply from Stuart:-

To clarify, the suspension of an employee is not intended to imply that the employee in question has done wrong. It is a neutral act that allows us to conduct a full investigation and reach a conclusion based on facts.
I will gladly update you regarding the outcome of the investigation.

To which I replied:-
Stuart,

I don't regard suspension as anything other than a punative action. A truely neutral act would be to allow the employee to remain in post while you conducted your 'enquiry' but why you should deem an enquiry necessary is beyond me. Are you employees not allowed the basic rights of freedom of speech that the rest of us are supposed to enjoy? It's not as if the poor guy spoke for Orange or even mentioned the company name.

Please do update me of the results of your investigation.

Kind regards,

Anonymous said...

Not a big loss for communtiy affairs as vt noted.
It is a bid borderline ...
Wouldn't want everybody's freedom of speech indirectly limited by their paymaster, but then again given his specific position in 'community affairs', he should have exercised better judgement.

Historically, we can know that even an enlightend Arabic/Morish scholar like Ibn Rushd, thanks to whom a lot of Aristotle work came to us, had difficulty apreciating comedy/satire.
Apparently not that much has changed the last 800 years.

Cheers

Gordon Comstock said...

I don't know, but reading his article I get the feeling he didn't enjoy his job as Community Affairs Spokesman all that much. Maybe it's just me, but I got this weird sense that he thought it was all exasperating bollocks.

Surely only explicable as an act of extraordinary desperation?

Anonymous said...

As a Community Affairs Manager for an international telecoms group with a presence around the globe, Mr. Wilson is extremely naïve to believe that posting such comments on a prominent website would not invoke a hostile response.

Having considered the facts, Mr. Wilson must be dismissed by his employer for the following reasons:

(1) Whilst we should all uphold freedom of speech, that freedom must be exercised responsibly. Following the official definition of racism, Mr. Wilson’s comments can clearly be defined as racist. They may also be an incitement to racial hatred. As such, there may be grounds for a criminal prosecution.

(2) His comments may be regarded as offensive to a variety of communities including followers of Islam, Palestinians, South Africans and Roman Catholics. As such, in addition to being considered racist in the former (presumably a breach of his terms of employment), he will be unable to effectively carry out his duties in fostering good relations with such groups, thus further breaching his terms of employment.

(3) His comments may be regarded as offensive to other groups such as teachers, social workers, employees of NGO’s, those who would describe themselves as socialists and so forth. Indeed his views are not exclusively offensive to these groups, and may be considered offensive to all those who espouse tolerance and respect – from all communities and all walks of life. This further enforces the breach of terms of employment raised above.

(4) The author appears to condone racism by asserting to be a racist is deemed as being “much worse than being violent, thoughtless or unkind” - placing him at odds with his employer and contract of employment.

(5) This is added to by his comments on hate crime.

(6) Wilson’s comments in relation to equality, diversity and gender issues will likewise be at odds with his employer and breach his contract of employment.

(7) Responsible, I read, for consultation with communities, Mr. Wilson describes same as “a formal system for ignoring public views while patronising them at the same time.” This statement places him at odds with his employer and his duties, thus again breaching his contract of employment.

(8) Comments relating to the BBC and media ensure relationships in this area are likewise compromised, thus breaching terms of employment.

The above, combined, ensure Mr. Wilson will be unable to continue to perform the duties of his role. By HIS actions, (many of which will counter his employers’ policies) HE ALONE has made himself unable to fulfil his role and thus contract of employment with Orange.

Remember, it was Mr. Wilson who indirectly referenced his employer by his introduction: “Inigo Wilson manages community affairs for a large telecoms company.” He also made comments in relation to both a colleague and a discussion within his organisation.

Again, whilst we all should seek to uphold freedom of expression, such expression must be exercised responsibly and within the legal framework of the UK. What is remarkable is that such a prominent and educated figure did not recognise the above, and how his comments would be interpreted by others (the key legal factor), regardless of the context in which they were intended.

It is also regrettable that because of his action, his employer, Orange, is now at the centre of a debate on which it has no desire to enter. Here Orange cannot win. Its actions will be no different to any other organisation caught in the same position – Vodafone, 02 or others. To think otherwise is foolhardy.

What is certain is that the reputation of his employer, its brand, customer relations and commercial activity will be damaged regardless of the outcome – further strengthening the requirement to dismiss Mr. Wilson.

Sadly the future looks bleak for not only Mr. Wilson, but for his employer, good community relations and all those who recognise greater understanding, mutual respect and humanity is the only future for our world.

Anonymous said...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012704.php#comments

I regret to inform you that this weblog and some of its comments have been
identified as potentially Islamophobic. Under European Union Directive DCLXVI
it is compulsory for all contributors to take the following Islamophia test
immediately:

YOU MAY BE AN ISLAMOPHOBE IF...

(1) You refer to the midwinter holiday as 'Christmas'.

(2) You save loose change in a p***y-bank.

(3) You allow your children to read unexpurgated versions of Winnie the Pooh.

(4) You doubt whether it's politically correct to stone rape victims.

(5) You believe that the earth is round.

(6) You think there's something weird about a 50 year old man marrying a six
year old girl.

(7) Your children have Barbie dolls or Teddy Bears

(8) You object to being a second class citizen in your own country.

(9) You fail to celebrate cultural diversity when your daughter is gang-raped
for not wearing a headscarf.

(10) You think government policy should be determined by your elected
representatives rather than a howling mob.

(11) You object to your taxes being used to support people who are plotting to
kill you.

(12) You aren't convinced that 'Jihad' means 'Inner Spiritual Struggle'.

(13) You don't understand why the Jews must be exterminated.

(14) You allow your children to play with LEGO.

(15) You aren't married to at least one of your cousins.

(16) You sometimes have doubts about BBC reporting.

(17) You occasionally wonder what's inside those walking tents.

(18) You realise that taqiyya is not a Mexican beverage.

(19) You believe moderate Muslims ride unicorns.

(20) You don't appreciate the multicultural need for Methodist grandmothers to
be body-cavity searched before boarding aircraft.

(21) You claim to understand the words "Slay the unbelievers wherever you find
them", even though you don't speak Arabic.

(22) You object to taxpayers' money being spent for terrorists to hold a
festival to commemorate the anniversary of their massacres.

(23) You have reservations about 'faith schools' where the kids will be taught
that you and your family are najis (excrement), at public expense.

(24) You don't understand why flying your country's flag has become a
hate-crime.

(25) You don't appreciate why it is so insensitive and offensive for the police
to prevent oppressed minorities venting their frustration by mass murder.


EVALUATING YOUR SCORE
How many of the questions did you answer 'YES' ?

On a scale of 0 to 25

0 you are a Dhimmi
1 to 5 you are a Najis Kaffir
6 to 10 you are an Islamophobe
11 to 15 you are a Thought Criminal
16 to 20 you are an Enemy of Allah
21 to 25 you are a Zionist Crusader offspring of pigs and monkeys.

Fatwas are automatically awarded for all scores above 5

Fatwas will be posted in plain brown paper envelopes in laminated or embossed
styles, generously sprinkled with ricin, anthrax, sarin or cobalt-60

Posted by: savitch at August 15, 2006 07:41 PM

Matt Davis said...

Hi Matthew.

Thanks for your mail.

To clarify, the suspension of an employee is not intended to imply that the employee in question has done wrong. It is a neutral act that allows us to conduct a full investigation and reach a conclusion based on facts.
I will gladly update you regarding the outcome of the investigation.

Kind regards,

Stuart

Mike said...

I would sack him, so I think Orange are being rather fair to suspend him pending the result of the investigation.

casual observer said...

Stuart Jackson's action is more likely to bring Orange into disrepute than Inigo's article...

Anonymous said...

Dear Guido,

thx very much for putting the email link up, allowing me to express my opinion to Mr Jackson.
-----------------------------------


Dear Mr Jackson,

Your email address has been listed as a contact on the 'Guido Fawkes' blog in connection with the complaints against Mr Inigo Wilson. I would be grateful if you could pass this correspondence onto the appropriate person dealing with the investigation whilst the employee is suspended.

As an Orange customer I am offended by the public comments made by Mr Wilson, albeit in his private capacity. As an employee responsible for Community Affairs Mr Wilson should have recognised the potential offense that his comments may cause to a good number of people and thereby reflect on the public perception of Orange itself. The comments were not just a poor attempt at political humour. Unfortunately they were naive, vacuous and only served to reinforce negative stereotypes about minority groups in this country.


As a responsible organisation Orange should not have any association with such views which I know it does not share. I do not believe Mr Wilson shoud lose his job for this mistake. However, I do believe that it should be made clear to Mr Wilson that in future he should not publish or cause to be published such material which may reflect upon your organisation in this manner. Furthermore that as a condition of any disciplinary action taken against him he issue a personal apology for any offense his remarks may have caused.

sincerely,

AnyonebutBlair said...

Guys - can't you see that if you write something in a private capacity and someone then takes offence at it, rather than taking that up with you they seek to harm you and your family through damaging your career and livelihood is simply a form of repression?
Any democrat should object to orchestrated campaigns to harm people who write things that some sections of society find offensive. All those who think he's a bloody idiot and deserves it may be right that he's been an idiot but you should reflect on the use of a nasty tactic to harm Mr. Wilson and frighten us all from making comments that MCPAC UK doesn't like. We should all defend the right of people to say things we don't like, it's called freedom and democracy.

Copper Spoon said...

He deserves to be shot, never mind suspended!

He sounds like a rank and scummy individual, of the kind who votes BNP and then justifies it on the basis of "they get better houses" goddamitt!

Or maybe you are talking him down Guido?

Anonymous said...

If as is suggested, he made a reference to Orange, I for one would have been upset if they hadn't taken action against him for his fairly obviously racist comments. So that's modern Conservatism, eh? And just when I was thinking that I might be tempted to vote for Cameron, too. Shame...

bitterandtwisted said...

I'm organising a picket today at Orange. The chant I expect all attendees to sing in unison is:

What do we want?
The freedom to say racist things and keep our well paid jobs in PR.
When do we want it?
Back dated to ensure Inigo keeps his job.

It was the best I could do in the time I had. I also expect to see you all at ABC offices afterwards when we picket to get Mel Gibsons job back after his off the cuff stand up routine got his project pulled.

Thank you.

AnyonebutBlair said...

As I have said before - NOWHERE in Mr Wilsons article on Conservative Home does he refer to Orange. Someone has googled him to find his employer to take him down. As I say above this is simply repression.

jane said...

I thought his piece was a bit juvenile and only mildly amusing. but it didn't mention Orange at all, and only by googling could it have been found out who he worked for. Orange are cowards - the vilely racist MPACUK are treating this as a victory for Islamofascism and rightly so.

Anonymous said...

Mr Jackson,

Although not an Orange customer I thought I should let you know that I am today emailing all my contacts to draw their attention to your spineless kowtowing to the outrageous demand by MPAC to sack Mr Wilson. His article (if you've bothered to read it) clearly lampoons the very views that they take such exception to, but even if it wasn't it is incumbent upon you to resist this kind of dangerous attack on our freedoms to ridicule and (God forbid!) offend. His suspension is far from a 'neutral' act as I believe you have tried to suggest. I hardly think he views in it that light!

Yours,

Pastor Martin Niemöller said...

Anyone who has read Mr Wilson's piece will see that it was a satire on how words are MISUSED.

It is a MISUSE of the word "islamophobia" to apply it to people afraid of being bombed on public transport. It is a MISUSE of the word "palestinian" to be "archetype 'victims'"

In the prelude to the lexicon he writes:
"I've ... tried to describe their usage and meaning as I've encountered them. Welcome to the 'Lefty lexicon'."

To imply that these definitions prove the author to be islamophobic and racist is to grab the stick firmly by the wrong end and then complain about having shit covered hands.

pedant said...

I take great offence at the twaddle spouted by those supporting Orange's actions against Mr. Wilson. (I assume they are serious?) They should reflect on the fact that if those persecuting Mr. Wilson had their way, they would certainly not be free to peddle their strange views on a blog such as this!

Penfold said...

Will Liberty take up the case of the "Orangeone".
How dare MPAC attack our rights of free speech, free thought and expression, particularly when that does not directly incite.
Given the propensity of Islamists to see conspiracy everywhere and to be intolerant and threatening against criticism , it is no surprise that this affair is spiraliing, which means that we must resist most strongly the demands of the Islamofascists.
Inigo Wilson needs to get himself a damn good lawyer and sue MPAC and its directors/backers into the ground and then take Orange for a big sum.
Common Guido, set up a fighting fund, just like the old days at Private Eye.

Steve B said...

Anonymong @ 2.07am, firstly haven't you got anything better to do at that time of the morning than play out your victim complex?

Anyway - as Guido has said it's all about freedom. He was free to write the article, Orange are free to sack him (Depending on his T's & C's of course), the Muslims are free to whine to Orange and the rest of us are free to never give another penny to Orange.

One thing to note though is that it's only the Muslims who seem to want a crime of "Offending a Muslim". Therefore I know where my sympathies lie...

Man In Black said...

So, Stuart Jackson's future may not be orange.

Orange may be boycotted by both Tories and Muslims.

But they'll still be the biggest provider in Northern Ireland....

Cynic said...

MPAC: "We do not need to resort to violence when addressing issues of Islamophobia" ... Does this mean that if they reinstate him, MPAC will decide they do need to resort to violence? The implication is there...

paranoidman said...

Wilson is free to say what he wants - thing is though he's voluntarily agreed to a contract with an organisation in which he speaks for them in public. My own contract has a clause in which I agree not to undertake high profile activities in my own time which may conflict with the ethos and public image of my employer - which is fair in any communications role

perhaps if he wants to speak for himself he shouldn't wait to be sacked but get a different job

Anonymous said...

Looks like stuart@orange is doing a cut and paste/autoreply on his replies (although it was 10:22 until he got round to reading my mail!)

I got the same reply as Fred earlier:

Thanks for your mail.

To clarify, the suspension of an employee is not intended to imply that the employee in question has done wrong. It is a neutral act that allows us to conduct a full investigation and reach a conclusion based on facts. I will gladly update you regarding the outcome of the investigation.


Neutral is defined as ...Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest...

Since the bloggers on MPACUK are claiming they have achieved a victory, it is difficult to see this as a neutral act.

You've been tangoed said...

Anonymous said: "Seeing the comments and writing style on that Platform page has anyone else noticed that Athena Murphy and Meredith Magor are one and the same person? Do all lefties have an identity crisis or just the vindictive ones? In fact it looks like "You've been tangoed" could be the same person too. Wilson doesn't deserve the sack."

Sorry, anonymous. They are not the same person, nice try though (or maybe not). Are all "anonymous" the same person too?

lucy74 said...

Don't just sack him; kick him out of the Conservative party too. Sack him for unbelievable stupidity in publishing racist (and unfunny) crap when he is employed as a PR guy; kick him out of the party for making racist remarks. Seems pretty simple to me.

And no doubt the BNP will be beating down his door to jump on the bandwagon; I am sure he will find them a sympathetic audience for his unpleasant views.

You've been tangoed said...

Since Inigo Wilson has placed his employers in a very awkward position, will he do the decent thing and resign before Orange comes to a decision about his future with them - whenever that may be?

Frank Fisher said...

Er, what happened to freedom of speech and opinion? He was writing in his own capacity, in his own time - Orange are of course free to feel that he has bought he company into disrepute; I can't see that. Their own actions now might do that...

This is a very unpleasant slippery slope. We're already at the stage of people being fired for belonging to the BNP, now it seems uttering even the mildest non-PC comments can get you suspended. This isn't my idea of a free society.

BTW, if this is said to have harmed Orange, what does Bungawala do to Reuters?

hannibal said...

"His comments may be regarded as offensive to a variety of communities including followers of Islam, Palestinians, South Africans and Roman Catholics."

And your point is? Since when do you have a right not to be offended?

Mr Gisoad said...

Memo to everyone offended by Mr Wilson's "racist" comments:

1) Read Pastor Niemoller's posting above (10.40 am, if that helps)

2) Slap your forehead with suitable sound effect and exclaim "oh, what a clot I've been."

3) go on your way, feeling moderately chastised but nevertheless happy that unlike some (you should know who you are by now), you have not displayed to the entire blogosphere that you are so STOOPID you can't understand satire when it leaps up and bites you in the arse.

This topic may have brought out some racist wingnuts but by god it's been useful in identifying the mentally challenged.

Anonymous said...

Emailed objection to the suspension.........outrageous

NoJags Neil said...

Hehe... just thinking of the real Pastor Niemoller:

"First they came for the unbelievers, and I did not speak out...

Then they came for the Tories, and I did not speak out..."

hehehe
_chuckle_

GeoffH said...

eMail Mr Jackson at Orange and you get the absolutely predictable weasel response that "the suspension of an employee is not intended to imply that the employee in question has done wrong. It is a neutral act that allows us to conduct a full investigation and reach a conclusion based on facts".

SO every time some clueless, set of troublemakers complains, Orange suspedn the employee do they?

I think not.

Anonymous said...

Email I sent to Orange today:

I am writing to say that I am annoyed to see that Orange, a purveyor of communications technology, in deciding to bow to the demands of Islamic fascism, has discarded our long held right to free speech and suspended an
employee for expressing his opinions. I care not whether the 'Muslim Public Affairs Committee' are broadly respected amongst politicians or not: their
attempt to stop such comments being made define them as fascist.
What harm can come to Orange if you defend the legal rights of individuals? None, except the admiration of the majority of the people of the UK, irrespective
of their religion.
I have been an Orange customer for some time, spending on average £30 a month. I have friends and and family who are customers of Orange and who would also feel strongly about this. I shall be passing on this story to them.
I shall be switching to another supplier within one week if this employee is not reinstated.

AC (phone number)

Anonymous said...

Email I sent to Orange today:

I am writing to say that I am annoyed to see that Orange, a purveyor of communications technology, in deciding to bow to the demands of Islamic fascism, has discarded our long held right to free speech and suspended an
employee for expressing his opinions. I care not whether the 'Muslim Public Affairs Committee' are broadly respected amongst politicians or not: their
attempt to stop such comments being made define them as fascist.
What harm can come to Orange if you defend the legal rights of individuals? None, except the admiration of the majority of the people of the UK, irrespective
of their religion.
I have been an Orange customer for some time, spending on average £30 a month. I have friends and and family who are customers of Orange and who would also feel strongly about this. I shall be passing on this story to them.
I shall be switching to another supplier within one week if this employee is not reinstated.

AC (phone number)

no longer anonymous said...

If Inigo was mocking anyone it was white liberals who throw the word "Islamophobia" around at anybody who is concerned about Islamic fundamentalism. I see the self-righteous anti-humour brigade have started posting above. Have you any idea how pompous you sound?

I expect most people in this country, even if they don't find Inigo's comments that amusing would consider this a "disproportionate" response.

Incidently, what do the PC brigade above think of MPACUK?

iamoffended said...

To all those who feel offended by Wilson's article, as Stephen Fry's words apply: "So you’re offended. So fucking what?"

moko said...

greenham woman said...Off topic, but its bothering me...Guido, where is Lord Levy? Has he skipped bail?6:35 PM

Quite interesting to see his visit to Israel reported on Channel 4 News yesterday,they seemed to be under the impression that he`d only just arrived when Guido fans know different.I wonder how much yet another visit to the Israeli PM was "cover" to a bit of laying low.Seems odd timing given that a certain degree of progress had already been made towards peace and Britain have played very little part in any of the events in any case.

frantic said...

Orange: French company - say no more. JD.

Anonymous said...

exactly hannibal. The idea from anonymous that people have a legal right not to be offended is utter gibberish. He includes "socialists" among those entitled not to be offended - socialism is a highly contested political view. To disagree with it and thus offend those who take the opposite view is thje very premise of a free society. the utter mince which is that long rambling anonymous post really is a thing to behold

Anonymous said...

exactly hannibal. The idea from anonymous that people have a legal right not to be offended is utter gibberish. He includes "socialists" among those entitled not to be offended - socialism is a highly contested political view. To disagree with it and thus offend those who take the opposite view is thje very premise of a free society. the utter mince which is that long rambling anonymous post really is a thing to behold

marah said...

" Think befor you act"! This employee should have anticipated the outcome of his actions. It's not an issue of depriving one not to speak. But it is an issue of being responsible and not abusing the right to speak.
If he had the moral, he could have resigned earlier than humiliate himself of being suspended.

hovis said...

Ah Marah you want fear and self censorship not just real censorship - NewThink .. you repulsive totalitarian little turd

Thou shalt commit adultery said...

What actions? Anyone who says the article was racist either:

a) didn't read it
b) read it and didn't understand it
c) understood it and wants deliberately to misrepresent it.

His "definitions" ARE NOT DESCRIPTIVE OF HIS VIEWS. They are deliberately risible examples of the way in which the words are misused.

By the way, has anyone got a decent definition of libel to hand?

Francis Walsingham said...

"Abusing the right to speak" - an absolutely stupid phrase.

This bullshit about whether something is or is not "offensive" is going to destroy our civilisation. You do not have the right not to be offended. If you don't like the sound of something, don't listen to it. And if you don't like living in a place where you might be offended, you can fuck right off.

prawn crackers said...

Marah you sound like the Vicar of Albion. And just as stupid. Remove your surplice and flush the righteous unction from your system. "Not abusing the right to speak" will go down in the lexicon of meaningless phrases. What the fuck do you mean, Vicar?

moko said...

iamoffended said...To all those who feel offended by Wilson's article, as Stephen Fry's words apply: "So you’re offended. So fucking what?"10:27 PM
Strong words from someone who tearfully fled to France a few years back in a girly frenzy because "nobody loves me"? Of course we do Stephen,just like the fat,flatulent old labrador farting away in the corner that we cant bear to put down just yet,next time the truth hits you dont bother buying a return ticket.

Anonymous said...

Surely Orange must have known they were employing a bigot before the article on Conservative Home? I think the Orange employee who interviewed him should follow him out of the door.

Neal Asher said...

Ah, the whole Lefty Lexicon can be found here: http://www.di2.nu/files/Lefty.html

When will these jobsworths learn the lesson of Frankie Goes to Hollywood's main hit record?

moko said...

Neal Asher said...When will these jobsworths learn the lesson of Frankie Goes to Hollywood's main hit record?
8:27 PM
Probably when Frankie Goes To Hollywood have their next Number 1 Neal

Perry de Havilland said...

Guido would be the last person to deny a company should have the right to fire whomsoever then wish amongst their employees if they wish to placate some irate customers, but that does not mean that other customers (i.e. Islamophobes such as myself) should not try to make an equal and opposite reaction to convince Orange that they will lose *our* business if they do pander to the Islamists.

Yet it is interesting how people on the left are always quick to complain when 'wicked corporations' fire people, with preposterous talk of employment 'rights' (as if you have a 'right' to a job) and yet are delighted if some non-lefty gets fired for saying something they disapprove of.

Athena Murphy said...

"Seeing the comments and writing style on that Platform page has anyone else noticed that Athena Murphy and Meredith Magor are one and the same person? Do all lefties have an identity crisis or just the vindictive ones? In fact it looks like "You've been tangoed" could be the same person too."

Wrong - I have nothing to do with the other people that you mention. But if it makes you feel better to convince yourself that I am the only person out there that was offended by Inigo Wilson's bigotry and was single-handedly responsible for the suspension of this man, go right ahead!

Jim in Phoenix said...

Wilson did nothing wrong. When will people wake up? The guys arrested for wanting to blow up airplanes with liquid explosives are:

Catholics?
Lutherans?
Anglicans?
Baptists?
Methodists?
Mormons?
Seventh Day Adventists?
Hindus?
Jews?
Bhuddists?
Presbyterians?
Moslems?

That's right boys and girls. When was the last time you heard of a Baptist or a Hindu plotting to blow up an airplane?

Athena Murphy said...

Erm, the Christians and Jews are way ahead of the Muslims with regard to blowing things up. See 'Iraq', 'Afghanistan', 'Palestine' and more recently 'Lebanon'. Where have you been hiding of late?