Opening Statement - maybe include after you speech
Let’s not confuse badly worded with bad intent.
I’m still asking the same question I asked at the start: how is this racist?
The only answer I’ve heard so far is: “someone might see it as racist.”
That doesn’t explain how — or why — or who.
And when you break that logic down, it starts to reveal its own prejudice.
The Comment:
“They should be grateful it wasn’t guns.”
It’s blunt, yes — but racist? Absolutely not.
Q: But surely you can see how it could be perceived as racist?
A:
Perceived by who? Based on what?
Perception without evidence is not proof.
If you’re saying it could be racist — that’s not the same as saying it is.
You can’t dismiss someone for what someone else might project onto a sentence — especially when no one actually said it was racist at the time.
Q: But the article was about a mosque — doesn’t that add racial or religious context?
A:
A mosque is a place of worship — it does not belong to a single race.
If the reason you’ve labelled the comment racist is because the article was about a mosque, then you are the one attaching race or religion to it — not me.
That’s racial stereotyping.
It didn’t come from me — it came from the company’s interpretation.
Q: But can’t you understand how some people might find it offensive in that context?
A:
I understand that things can be misread — and that’s exactly why I deleted the comment before I even arrived at work.
I didn’t argue. I didn’t provoke. I clarified, and I removed it.
That’s not misconduct — that’s accountability.
Q: So you deny the comment had any racist undertone at all?
A:
Absolutely.
The only way you find racism in that sentence is if you assume the word “they” refers to a specific racial group — which it doesn’t.
If that’s what’s happened, then it was you, not me, who made the racial assumption.
And remember — only one sentence was used from a full thread of comments.
That context matters. The intent matters.
And there was no racist undertone in any of it.
Q: Why do you think the company believed it was racist then?
A:
I honestly don’t know.
Maybe someone panicked about how it might look, instead of looking at what was actually said.
But panic over optics isn’t grounds for accusing someone of racism.
That’s a serious allegation — it requires evidence, not assumption.
And certainly not projection.
If they claim the comment was discriminatory against religion
What they might say:
“It may not have been about race, but it could be seen as targeting a religion — the comment was under a post about a mosque.”
How you respond:
Simon:
If you now believe the comment refers to religion, I’d like to understand the logic — because the comment itself makes no reference to religion, Muslims, Islam, or belief systems of any kind.
It was a reaction to an act of violence involving people throwing stones.
The comment said: “They should be grateful it wasn’t guns.”
That is not a statement about religion — that is a comparison about scale of violence.
Let’s break this down:
The article was about a mosque — yes.
But a mosque is a building. It’s not a race. It’s not a religion. It’s not a person.
People of many ethnicities attend mosques, and not all who do are part of the same cultural group.
So unless you are saying that all people who attend mosques are the same religion — and that I was targeting that religion — then your accusation relies entirely on assumptions you’ve made, not anything I actually said.
That’s not evidence. That’s projection.
And if they say:
“You must’ve known it would be interpreted that way.”
You reply:
“No, I knew it could be misread — which is exactly why I deleted it.
Deleting something to avoid misunderstanding is the opposite of misconduct. It’s responsible.
If anything, this shows I wasn’t trying to target or provoke — I was trying to de-escalate.”
And finally, if they say:
“The subject matter was sensitive, and even if unintentionally, the comment was offensive.”
You reply:
“We’re now back to interpretation.
You’re not pointing to what I said — you’re pointing to what you think it might mean.
And if you believe that anything said under a post about a mosque is automatically about a religion, that says more about your assumptions than it does about my intentions.”
Allegation
[Spoken by Simon Griffin during the appeal]
Simon:
At the disciplinary hearing, the allegation shifted from racism to "inappropriate behaviour." I’d like to understand exactly what that refers to.
What specifically did I do that constitutes "inappropriate behaviour"?
Anticipated Company Reply:
"It was the nature of the comment — it could be seen as inappropriate given the sensitive topic."
Simon’s Response: Then we’re dealing with perception again — not behaviour.
Posting a comment on a public news article, during my own time, is not in itself an inappropriate act. I didn’t direct it at anyone. I didn’t threaten anyone. I didn’t breach any social media policy, and I deleted the comment before I even arrived at work — precisely to avoid it being misread.
Where is the actual behaviour here that you're calling inappropriate?
Anticipated Reply:
"It was the tone or implication of the comment."
Simon’s Response: If tone is the issue, then this is purely subjective. Tone alone — when there’s no threat, no discriminatory language, no personal targeting — cannot reasonably justify summary dismissal. Are we now punishing people for tone?
Anticipated Reply:
"The post could be interpreted as encouraging violence."
Simon’s Response: The comment said: “They should be grateful it wasn’t guns.” That is not an endorsement of violence. It is clearly a comparison — and I followed it with a clarifying comment explaining the reference to how similar events play out in other countries.
Deleting the comment was a further act of accountability. That’s not inappropriate — that’s responsible.
Simon (looping back): So I’ll ask again — what action did I take that was inappropriate? Was it the act of posting itself? Or is it the company’s interpretation of what someone might think it meant?
Because if this is based solely on how something might be perceived, then this isn’t disciplinary behaviour — it’s speculation. And speculation should never be grounds for gross misconduct.
Supplement — Challenging ‘Threatening Behaviour’ or ‘Threatening Language’
You’ve also used the phrase “threatening behaviour” or “threatening language.” I would like that clarified.
What exactly was the threat — or the language — that you believe could be classed as threatening?
If your position is that saying “They should be grateful it wasn’t guns” is threatening — then I reject that completely.
There is no threat there. There is no incitement. There is no instruction, no suggestion, no target, and no aggression. It’s a factual statement reflecting on how incidents elsewhere often involve firearms. It might have been worded bluntly — but blunt is not threatening.
If we’re defining ‘threatening language’ as anything that could make someone uncomfortable — even when no actual threat is made — then the threshold for misconduct becomes dangerously low.
You’re not disciplining behaviour — you’re disciplining assumed interpretation.
If I had posted: “Imagine if this happened in America — it would’ve been guns,” would I still be sat here? The meaning is identical. You’re not objecting to the message — you’re objecting to the phrasing.
That’s not gross misconduct. That’s language policing.
Addressing ‘Potential Reputational Damage to the Company’
It’s been suggested that the company’s concern was reputational harm — but no evidence of harm has been presented.
Let’s be clear:
There were no complaints from the public.
No media attention.
No negative social media reaction.
No breach of company reputation until the company itself escalated this internally.
You’re now disciplining based on the potential for reputational damage, not actual damage.
That is like taking someone’s car keys away because “there’s a potential they might crash.” Potential is not proof. Risk is not reality. And fear of hypothetical public reaction is not a lawful reason for dismissal.
Every legal precedent I cited earlier — Higgs v Farmor’s School, Horváth v Lidl, Maynard v Mitie — emphasises this:
You cannot discipline or dismiss someone for perceived damage unless you can prove that the damage occurred and was caused by their conduct.
No proof has been given. Because no harm occurred. If reputational harm exists, it was created internally by the way this was handled — not by a comment that no one outside of the company saw in connection with my job.
Closing Punchline: Let’s not confuse badly worded with bad intent
If interpretation alone becomes the test for punishment, then no employee is safe from assumption or bias. That is not a fair standard, and this situation proves exactly why it can’t be the standard.