Is Love That Blind?
http://20six.co.uk/oberon
powered by
20six.co.uk
|
|
Penetrating the fog on pornography
Nah, I didn’t jump on a plane. Tempting though. Imagine waking up in Kobe or Rio or Prague and making a fresh start. I couldn’t balls things up as badly second time round, could I?
Instead I’ve spent the week looking at porn and attending disciplinary meetings – so it has been a very strange few days.
Perhaps, I should clarify. I have been surfing explicit sites entirely for work reasons, and whether or not they classify as ‘porn’ is the moot point.
In any case they were not to my taste, as they largely featured good looking young boys who all seemed to have had an accident with a large bottle of baby oil resulting in them spilling the entire contents over their glistening, impossibly hairless bodies.
They had also all managed to find an unusual place to hide their draft excluders - down a pair of unfeasibly tight shorts! Handy, if a cold snap comes on when you’re not expecting it.
The first task was to investigate Richard’s Internet use, and that is where I hit my first problem.
The company IT policy document is sloppily written. In one paragraph it states that surfing porn using company equipment is considered gross misconduct and will be punished by instant dismissal.
In the next it says that those viewing ‘inappropriate’ websites will also face unspecified disciplinary action.
Crucially it makes no attempt at a definition of either ‘pornography’ or ‘inappropriate’, so I had to come up with definitions myself.
‘Inappropriate’ is easy – anything that is not directly connected with your work. OK, we all do it – surfing the net I mean - but Richard got caught. So tough.
As he was looking at chat rooms, dating sites and other titillating fair, he is bang to rights on the ‘inappropriate use’ charge. But was it ‘porn’, that would result in him getting the sack?
Defining pornography is notoriously difficult. But I’ve come up with a solution that gets Richard – and me – off the hook. It can be summed up in one word and squeamish readers should look away now – penetration.
In one day Richard looked at 63 different websites. We are not giving this boy enough work to do! I visited them all. Some featured nudity and one or two showed erect penises, but none showed penetration (although they linked to sites that do, and boy does it look painful!).
My definition isn’t perfect, I know, and would probably include ‘educational’ videos on sale at WH Smiths, but there it is.
It allowed me to give Richard a written warning over his Internet use, and a stern word over the office wresting match. The word homosexual or gay never passed my lips. It is not relevant, although inevitably he brought it up.
I also gave Bilal and Simon verbal warnings and a bollocking over their conduct. Bilal cried and Simon swore. No one is happy, and I expect it will all end up in an industrial tribunal, but with any luck I will have been sacked by then.
So that’s it. I tried to be fair and they all hate me. Just like being a dad really.
Welcome to the wonderful world of management, Ella.
|
|
|
To date 12 Comment(s)
TrackBack-URL
(20.1.04 22:39)
Oi! Just caught up with this. Sounds absolutely horrible and it's shocking you can't sack Richard for that. Even more shocking to think that any of these idiots may have some comeback over this. A sweetie seems irrelevant, but that's the best I can offer right now.
|
(20.1.04 23:08)
Surely there is a definition somewhere of what qualifies as porn. Board of film classification maybe ?
I comiserate since it is now obvious what your next week-end assignment will be - rewriting the sloppy company policy with Rosalind cracking the whip behind you.
By the way, you never said how your curry/panto outing went in the end. Did Becky change her mind and turn up in the end or is she still sulking ?
|
(21.1.04 11:19)
I think you've found the best solution. The problem with using internet history (from the PC in question) as a 'witness' is that while it tells you WHERE someone has been, it doesn't tell you for how long.
I clicked an innocent looking link on 20six the other day (it lead to another user's blog) and nearly got the shock of my life with what I was presented with. To say that it was both innapropriate, and shocking is an understatement. As soon as I found that the site was wrong, I clicked back. Now, if you came along and studied my PC, I would have an innappropriate webpage on my HD. Therefore, your definate distinction of penetration as the defining factor has probably given you the best out. Well done!
|
(21.1.04 11:44)
Very, very neatly done avoiding the gay issue, Oberon ...... And they would never have been happy with whatever you decided - all having guilty consiences about brawling in the office and refusing to acknowledge it even to themselves - it's that chest-puffing rooster thing that blokes quite often seem to do, methinks!
I hope for your sake that stroppy's wrong about your next assignment!
|
(21.1.04 17:13)
why didn't you ask Ella to look over the sites for you? as the guys were going to get a bollocking any way.
and I'm glad that Kspragg ends up in doggy sites by accident (LOOK DEAR IT'S NOT JUST ME)
|
(21.1.04 20:51)
I think it's shameful that this gimp was abusing his company internet privileges when he must have known perfectly well that he should be blogging.
|
(22.1.04 05:55)
I think you have found the perfect title for this piece, you should also be entitled to a few extras days of paid leave for having to view those sights. After all it is a bit above and beyond…
|
(22.1.04 23:35)
Kate (I’m not looking up your skirt honest - ooh Thursday is it?) - yeah I’d love to sack him, but I don’t think I’d get away with it. His sign-on in the chat room was ‘Dick Hard’! Honestly! What can you say?
Stroppy - the best definition I could find was under the old obscene publications act which said that ‘pornography ‘ was material which would tend to ‘corrupt and deprave’ anyone viewing it. Hell! I’m as corrupt and depraved as they come.! So what can I say? I didn’t find it a great help.
The panto was great fun, and thanks for asking. I think I laughed more than the children. They laughed at me more than they did at the dame. Becky didn’t turn up though. No, happy ending there I’m afraid.
Keith - you mean they can track everything I’ve looked at on my work PC? Oh hell! Should I resign now?
Pog - yes, I’ve already re-written the company’s IT policy - it was deemed necessary after we discovered, as a result of this investigation, that half the company’s bandwidth was taken up with people listening to the radio and downloading pictures, and even films!
Princess - yes, I think Ella has become a fan of Latino Boys Online.com or whatever.
Menace - guess what! Richard has a blog!!! But wild horses - honestly a bloody mega-horsepower Ferrari - couldn’t possibly drag the url out of me. Unlike me he includes identifying details. Sacking offence - seriously.
Clansoup - does an extended sickie count as a few days paid leave. Because I’ m worth it!
|
(23.1.04 02:38)
The trouble with you Oberon is that you need to be liked. I say trouble, it's both a curse and a blessing in some respects. It makes you a decent bloke, but it also means you shy away from difficult or controversial decisions unless you absolutely cannot help stepping outside your normal boundaries (such as you did when confronting your wife and parents in law over the pervert).
You know full well Richard should have been sacked. Not just because of his misconduct and misuse of IT resources and time at work, and not just because he did all that on someone else's login, but because your staff need to appreciate you do have some authority.
Bilal should have been given a written warning. Privately you should have told him you understand fully his anger and why he was so upset, but that his correct course of action would have been to come to you with his concerns. What he did was unprofessional. The written warning should be extremely firm but you can soft soap the talk.
The same for Simon, something on his record for the uproar in the office, but an understanding chat that you know how angry he must have been but that there is no excuse for what he did and it must not happen again.
You shouldn't care so much for other people's feelings. With your character and qualities, you will never be short of friends, and you can afford for a few people not to like you if it serves a purpose. You're turning into an intelligent David Brent.
|
(23.1.04 07:15)
We must take a quick count of things here.
You did not jump on the plane, you avoided a lawsuit from disgruntled employee’s, avoided the (gay/lesbian, religion, union) power struggle and have already re-written office policy. I would have to agree you are worth it, worth that and more. I would think the company credit card and a great dinner with Ella. If Rosalind has a problem with the bill, just have them write it up as snow tires. : )
|
(23.1.04 14:32)
I am intrigued. How can a self confessed celibate be corrupt and depraved ?
I think I saw a documentary once with a censor who had to view videos and pictures and decide if they qualified as porn. He said some of it is hard to judge. He recalled a film which just had footage of women walking in different shoes shot from mild calf down. Innocent to the average eye. Hot stuff if you are a foot fetishist.
|
(23.1.04 23:29)
Mmm. Stroppycow has a strong point. The word `porn` derives from the Greek for `harlot,` thus `pornography` (a word coined by the Guardian in 1880; you`d have expected the Daily Mail, wouldn`t you?) is, approx, `The Study of Ladies of Negotiable Affection.` The assupmtion from this is, pay attention at the back, that whatever turns you on- harlots, feet, rubber- is the thing that you would be prepared to pay for to obtain sexual gratification. What you pay with is moot. If I buy slinky silky things to pull some hunk I fancy, how is this different to offering him a fiver for a shag?
Me, I make part of my living writing pornography. You can find in on the shelves at Smiths and Waterstones. No one HAS to buy it. But people do.
Miranda xxx
|
|