*
Richard
Scudamore sent some crude and sexist emails to a long standing friend. Here are
some of them, and they don’t make pleasant reading. In this private email he
warned his friend to keep a woman colleague nicknamed Edna ‘off your shaft.’
Another
email tells of a former girlfriend ‘…called double decker…happy for you to play
upstairs, but her Dad got angry if you went below. And finally, just to give
you a sample he forwarded an old sexist joke: “Once upon a time a Prince asked
a beautiful Princess, “Will you marry me?” The Princess said, “No!” And the
Prince lived happily ever after and rode motorcycles and banged skinny big
t****d broads...”
Unfortunately
for him copies were automatically sent to his PA whose job it was to arrange
his diary. It is unclear as to whether she had to read these emails, but read
them she did. She was shocked. So much so, she sold them to a national
newspaper, which no doubt assuaged her feelings.
As
a result one leading officer for Women’s and Girls’ football claimed these
comments might ‘put women off football’ and demanded disciplinary action. She
added “The people at the top of the Premier League should be sending down the
right message to all levels of football.”
Another
spokesman is quoted as saying:
“Every employing organisation should have a
disciplinary code covering staff conduct, and follow due process at all times
when there is an allegation of sexist behaviour.”
Shadow
Equalities Minister Gloria de Piero declares: ‘It is time to kick sexism out of
football.’
And
who on earth would disagree with the statement by Women in Sport that:
"Sexism, as with racism and homophobia, is not acceptable in the
workplace.”?
But
are these charges applicable?
Scudamore,
to my knowledge, has never publically indulged in sexist behaviour that would
discourage women from football. You could argue the culprit in this respect is
the PA and the newspaper that made money from four or five private emails.
In
Scudamore’s words: "They were received from and sent to my private and
confidential email address, which a temporary employee who was with the
organisation for only a matter of weeks, should not have accessed and was under
no instruction to do so. "Nonetheless I accept the contents are
inappropriate and apologise for any offence caused, particularly to this
person." The question is whether the PA who made money from this will also
apologise.
The
former Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell would argue the reverse. For her
Scudamore is the villain of the piece:
a)‘You
can’t have one position publically and then be laughing privately.’
b)
In the world of social media and email, there is no public and private.
And,
in a quite sinister, almost North Korean statement:
c)
"I expect and hope that as a changed person he will reflect and make
absolutely clear that these unacceptable views he circulated privately, he will
never, ever express again."
With
regard to the first point it was Elizabeth I who famously declared she didn’t
want to make windows into men’s souls. In other words a Catholic could remain Catholic
in private belief so long as he or she publically attended a Protestant Church.
Similarly past American Presidents might well have racist beliefs but politics
and pragmatism saw them championing Civil Rights.
The
second point – a fuzzy generalisation - is equally debatable. A public figure
would be bonkers to blog controversial views or bad taste, or post them on Face
Book. But a private email should be that - private. The postal Services Act of
2000 declares it a criminal offense to wilfully open another person’s letter to
their detriment, and backs this up with a potential £5000 fine. Though, to my
knowledge, there is no similar legislation with regard to email, the principle
is essentially the same.
Jowell’s
last point is just plain totalitarian. Richard Scudamore’s views are not my
views. They amount to schoolboy giggles from a fifty-two year old man. Even so,
he is perfectly entitled to say what he wants in private and to friends. I
imagine there are equally raucous, tasteless and sexist outbursts at Hen
Parties.
I
am not championing Scudamore’s comments. I am arguing against thought control
in the private sphere.
It
is more important to judge someone by their deeds than what they might say or
not say in private. In Richard Scudamore’s case he has joined with the FA and
Sports England to promote a new FA Woman and Girls programme with a £2.4
million investment. And has publically proclaimed his intention that the
football lead aims to be at the ‘leading edge’ of the ‘whole equality agenda.’
It
will be interesting to see the outcome of the disciplinary action to be
published next week.
*
