Nigel Owens abuse

First topic message reminder :

Not sure if anyone has seen this but the abuse Nigel Owens is getting on Twitter and Facebook from Samoa fans is shocking. For me this makes me glad they are no longer in the RWC.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Nigel-Ref-Owens/285269013216

TheGreyGhost wrote:

viewtothegym wrote:Calling him racist is just plain stupid and the bitterness is just disgusting,
but these Islander boys certainly do have low IQ levels,the spelling and grammar of the comments make my Welsh backwards concept on English look articulate and almost Shakespearian.

Come on lads grow up this isn't wendyball.

Can't believe how much childish patronising paff is being aimed at Samoa for some drunken Twittering. Frankly that's a whole lot less destructive than Tindall's drunken fondling or Ashton and co's harassment of a female hotel worker. Surely going home and taking out the frustrations on the interweb is a whole lot less offensive than carrying on like a bunch of up themselves private school boys who've slipped the masters cane.

To you maybe, but not to the game, no.

Better to fail to spell on Twitter, than to fail to referee a rugby world cup match successfully.

Some might say.

Still don't really get why everyone is getting upset that he has been labelled as gay. Given that it's true.

Griff wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Might be a misunderstanding as "gay" isn't a pejorative term in Samoa which is culturally not a homophobic society as western european countries tend to be.

Describing him in this way is probably just a judgement call from a people used to calling things as they see them.

Personally I'm not qualified to comment, having no idea of the man's orientation. But I'd be prepared to defer to experts.

Perhaps in taking offence over what may transpire to be merely a misunderstanding derived from the way the man conducts himself, we have seen some unnecessary cultural friction.

Western european countries tend to be homophobic. GG, you clearly have some intellect as evidenced by your writing style and use of prose, but you also come out with some dumb rubbish which betrays any intelligence that you may have. Where is the evidence that western european counties are any more or less homophobic that NZ or Australia, for example? I think you just like to make outrageous statements to get a reaction, which begs the question why?

It's not dumb rubbish at all. West society has struggled with homosexuality. Possibly arising through various religious schools of thought. Until comparatively recently gay folk's were heavily repressed there were laws against gay sex, and I believe in the USA it's still illegal to have gay sex in many states. Hence we had gay people driven underground and reflections in artistic out pourings such as Bowie/Queen's Under Pressure and the movie Philadelphia, special gay and lesbian festivals, award ceremonies for gay people (which Owens himself has picked up on more than one occasion). How many posts of support did Gareth Thomas get on old 606 when he came out as gay? most were along the lines that his open admission of homosexuality would help those in the game who were gay and couldn't admit it. Remember the tens of bitter prejudiced and mocking posts that were made?

I think Owen's himself was moved to say

"There's still a bit of stigma from some people but as far as the rugby community goes as a whole, I'm sure he'll be very pleasantly surprised like I was."

Contrast this to Samoan society were gay and transgenderalism has been openly accepted as normal life for centuries. Google for fa'afafine.

^ Blimey you do go on cheer up fella

"Western european countries tend to be homophobic."

very very strange comment considering its the first place were gays can m,arry etc. your miles of base pal- in many other countries gays are getting killed. Europe is by far the most accepting and liberal place in the world no more to say really- you have come back and retorted with usa's issues- sorry thats a geography fail there pal. Next

Oakey, you are totally wrong. Read me response above about Samoa in specific in comparison with for example Britain.

From Wiki:
e
"LGBT rights were non-existent at the time of the formation of the United Kingdom, but have increasingly strengthened in support since the decriminalisation of same-sex sexual activity between the middle to late 20th century."

Progessive decriminalisation in the last 50 years. And on the ground anti-gay crime is rising in Britain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/31/homophobic-attacks-increase-police-statistics

Now compare that to Samoa where gayness and transexuality has been not just tolerated but accepted for centuries.

Sorry, but you are wrong on this one. and your comment "Europe is by far the most accepting and liberal place in the world" is just laughable.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

Griff wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Might be a misunderstanding as "gay" isn't a pejorative term in Samoa which is culturally not a homophobic society as western european countries tend to be.

Describing him in this way is probably just a judgement call from a people used to calling things as they see them.

Personally I'm not qualified to comment, having no idea of the man's orientation. But I'd be prepared to defer to experts.

Perhaps in taking offence over what may transpire to be merely a misunderstanding derived from the way the man conducts himself, we have seen some unnecessary cultural friction.

Western european countries tend to be homophobic. GG, you clearly have some intellect as evidenced by your writing style and use of prose, but you also come out with some dumb rubbish which betrays any intelligence that you may have. Where is the evidence that western european counties are any more or less homophobic that NZ or Australia, for example? I think you just like to make outrageous statements to get a reaction, which begs the question why?

It's not dumb rubbish at all. West society has struggled with homosexuality. Possibly arising through various religious schools of thought. Until comparatively recently gay folk's were heavily repressed there were laws against gay sex, and I believe in the USA it's still illegal to have gay sex in many states. Hence we had gay people driven underground and reflections in artistic out pourings such as Bowie/Queen's Under Pressure and the movie Philadelphia, special gay and lesbian festivals, award ceremonies for gay people (which Owens himself has picked up on more than one occasion). How many posts of support did Gareth Thomas get on old 606 when he came out as gay? most were along the lines that his open admission of homosexuality would help those in the game who were gay and couldn't admit it. Remember the tens of bitter prejudiced and mocking posts that were made?

I think Owen's himself was moved to say

"There's still a bit of stigma from some people but as far as the rugby community goes as a whole, I'm sure he'll be very pleasantly surprised like I was."

Contrast this to Samoan society were gay and transgenderalism has been openly accepted as normal life for centuries. Google for fa'afafine.

Congratulations!Agaist some top level opposition you have managed tp post the most ill-informed posting on this site.Your ignorance knows no bounds!Well done.

How so Taff? I'm just using verifiable facts to diffuse rambling uneducated eurocentric nonsense.

What specifically do you believe I'm wrong about? Bit upset that some Island in the Pacific was more forward thinking than European states for a few centuries? blowing away some prejudices in a way that's uncomfortable for you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iheZM6VBJfE

While i know I shouldn't bother joining in this thread as GreyGhost is producing his usual quality of post, I will chip in my tuppence worth.
Niegl Owens is one of, if not the best, referees around. Ok, he doesn't get everything right but what referee ever does (I am a qualified ref and will readily admit that things go by unnoticed by me). While I would never condone any sort of personal written attacks in any media, I do think that Nigel must be pretty thick-skinned.
If we think back, it must have taken a lot of guts to go to the press and say what he did all those years ago. He risked his family alienating him, being cut out of wills, his "friends" not talking to him, clubs cancelling hsi booking as a speaker at diiners and no-one wanting to get into a conversation with him in the street, all because of the stigma attached to his revelation. I mean, if it applied to you, would you ever go public with the admission that you were .....


WELSH!!!!!

Sorry mod. Posted again while you were writing. Deleted. Point taken.

They advise people on where to find that stuff? What kind of savages live in australia???

GG regardless of the whether or not the Samoans are teh founders of liberal thinking and the true heirs of greek ideals of democracy freedom and acceptable gayness you have to admit that the content of those comments could be interpreted in no other way than as abussive, full of hatred, and attacking the man for being gay.
Its not acceptable as you well now, teh rest is just you trying to provoke an argument as well as betraying your own prejudices bias and inherent racism. Or possibly just trying to get a rise out of people, who knows eh...I have a really hard time telling when youre being serious.

Mod told us to drop it dude. Suggest we listen. Back to the rugby.

sorry mod changed

lol you have just massively lost this argument.. i dont wanna talk about it any more, but you should have at least checked to see if it was even legal before you made up your lies to have a euro bash!!!

RD, please don't pull this thread yet. I want the whole world to read my humour!!

In conclusion, Nigel Owens may have missed some stuff but definitely doesn't deserve the abuse he's getting regardless of whether most Samoans are tolerant and lovely.

mckay1402 wrote:In conclusion, Nigel Owens may have missed some stuff but definitely doesn't deserve the abuse he's getting regardless of whether most Samoans are tolerant and lovely.

This.

noone deserves tyhat sort of abusive for trying to do there job. But thena t the same time it comes with the terriotory as well. Its an important job, so if you are not perfroming you can be letting alot of people down and you have to learn to take the abusie.

He really should be thankfull he isnt a football ref- they get treated like rubbish from everyone just for living!

Wow, there's proof in one post that drinking and interweb don't mix. Are you trying to type? or firing a shotgun at the keyboard?

Glad to see youve moved on from shifting teh goalposts of the debate, ignoring the issue at the heart of it, making things up, attacking people simply for being from a certain part of the world, rubbishing entire cultures to just abussing individual posters for typo's GG.

No idea how you ever got banned twice, its a disgarce. The Mods are clearly inherently racist.

He should be made an example of. If not others will continue in the same fashion.

The organisers have made a mistake here though, why should Owens be involved in a game which has such a big impact on his home country. Ref's should always be in charge of a game where the outcome would attract the smallest intension of bias. Same a Lawrence reffing the SA-Aus match, winner plays his home nation.

I rarely think ref's ever favour a side that much but surely removing the doubt from supporters and players is the better way to go. This World cup has panned out perfectly for the organisers, NH refs in one half of the draw and vice versa.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Glad to see youve moved on from shifting teh goalposts of the debate, ignoring the issue at the heart of it, making things up, attacking people simply for being from a certain part of the world, rubbishing entire cultures to just abussing individual posters for typo's GG.

No idea how you ever got banned twice, its a disgarce. The Mods are clearly inherently racist.

Someone was attacking Samoan's for "not being able to spell" and suggesting they were all drunkards. I'm merely using the same logic on the poster's own effort to demonstrate the irony in his original post.

Samoa, and Samoans have come in for a lot of unfair auxilliary flack on this thread. A lot of it actually is racist in sentiment. A fair amount of it has been removed by the mods. I've merely been using logic and facts. If that is moving the goalposts, then it's a good thing.

Right, let's imagine it was Wales who had four days between group matches while Samoa had seven or eight. Let's also imagine that Wales were playing a crucial match that was refereed by a Samoan when the Welsh defeat was advantageous to Samoa. There would doubtless be a minority of Welsh idiots posting this kind of stuff. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Newsflash: every nation on earth has its share of idiots, racists and homophobes.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Glad to see youve moved on from shifting teh goalposts of the debate, ignoring the issue at the heart of it, making things up, attacking people simply for being from a certain part of the world, rubbishing entire cultures to just abussing individual posters for typo's GG.

No idea how you ever got banned twice, its a disgarce. The Mods are clearly inherently racist.

Someone was attacking Samoan's for "not being able to spell" and suggesting they were all drunkards. I'm merely using the same logic on the poster's own effort to demonstrate the irony in his original post.

Samoa, and Samoans have come in for a lot of unfair auxilliary flack on this thread. A lot of it actually is racist in sentiment. A fair amount of it has been removed by the mods. I've merely been using logic and facts. If that is moving the goalposts, then it's a good thing.

Shifting the debate away form the key point that the abuse was vile, and was homophobic ion nature is shifting the goalposts.
I do sympathise with some of the things you say GG, its correct to defend the Samoan culture but worng to do so by being racist in repsonse and simply abussing people then making up things about Samoan culture to further attack another. It does you or them no favours anymore than some of the repsonses on hear do the Europeans any favours, Ill back you on that and say some of it has been reactionary.

Stick to the debate, was it right or wrong for people to attack Nigel Owens for being gay using abussive language? Did the Samoan chaps posting on twitter and the bias shown by the New Zealand media follwoing the game contribute to this?
Just for once put your hand up and say "I was incorrect in some of my assertions, clearly some of the comments made by Samoan fans are innapropriate". That doesnt have to invalidate all the poinst youve made, if anything it makes it easier for people to follow the valid points youre making when you try to come across as reasonable and balanced.

The amount of bias and twisting of facts in your posts makes it very hard for people to take you seriously. Try and iopen your eyes a bit, then maybe people will look at what youre saying and take some of it on board in return.

I wasn't wrong, mate. Although a lot of the points in question have been vaccuumed up by the mods, who have asked us to leave the topic alone.

This is what is making the thread hard to follow. A lot of my rational and accurate posts are responses to childish ill-educated rants that have now been removed.

We've been asked to leave the topic alone, and I suggest we do.

I don't agree with racist and homophobic attacks on either Owens, or on Samoa. But it seems ironic that a thread defending Owens and condemning illiterate, rambling, drunken, racist, homophobic internet posting filled up with so much illiterate, rambling, drunken, racist posts.

Reading the facebook page you will discover a very high number (and more crucially a percentage of considerable substance) of postings which contain the following themes:

a) General reactive vitriol
b) Threats of molestation against both Mr Owens & 'the next Welsh person they meet'
c) Insinuation/Accusation of Fraud on the part of Mr Owens.
d) Anti-Welsh bigotry.
e) Homophobic themed rage

Both Mr Owens and Welsh rugby fans have to case to answer here. I will certainly not get dragged down to such a lowly level of argumentative stupidity where the accuser has a possibility of gaining victory over me via a greater experience of these endeavours.

Point (a) this reaction was predictable and thus expected.
Point (b) is despicable and has no place in an advancing society.
Point (c) is conspiracy via the route of emotive stupidity.
Point (d) is 'water off a duck back to me', predictable, boring, tiresome, I've see it all before many time in many places. Yawn.
Point (e) this has no place in an advancing society.

For those guilty of the 5 points listed, I would still offer my sympathy and handshake of peace although I will understand if these are refused or not received in good spirit.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I don't agree with racist and homophobic attacks on either Owens, or on Samoa. But it seems ironic that a thread defending Owens and condemning illiterate, rambling, drunken, racist, homophobic internet posting filled up with so much illiterate, rambling, drunken, racist posts.

- thats exactly what I thought.

Can we stop using 1 person to generalise the whole country/culture?

Personally I think the centre (im not going to toy with his name after seeing people pick about spelling) is a disgrace. This doesnt mean I think Samoa/Samoans are a disgrace, just him, hes a clart.

He had a formal warning just over a week ago after making comments that the IRB were treating Samoa like slaves and they were being subject to the sort of treament that the Jews were put through during the Holocaust. (Because Samoa lost)

He then openly points his finger at Nigel Owens and shouts "cheat, racist!". (because Samoa lost).

Being a sore loser is one thing, but anyone who defends that sort of behaviour, in any degree, is as much of a clart as this man. (ps, on the field, he was majestic, but for the love of god and his own career, someone take his laptop away).

My only question.....

.....HOW F*CKING EASY IS IT TO BECOME A LAWYER?!

I'm pretty sure the Samoan player didn't say anything about Owens being gay. He accused him of being racist and biased (or biased due to racism or something like that). Might be wrong. The homophobia came from random posters on facebook

HammerofThunor wrote:I'm pretty sure the Samoan player didn't say anything about Owens being gay. He accused him of being racist and biased (or biased due to racism or something like that). Might be wrong. The homophobia came from random posters on facebook

ill amend now. but the point stands about his clartness.

why is this conversation still going on. anyway it is illegal to be gay in somoa, so its not suprising that he is getting the abuse he is. Its sad bad life.

this is what happened from walesonline

"The user wrote: “I can guarantee you Nigel Owens is a wanted man in Samoa – Dead.”

The rugby player replied to the re-tweets by writing: “I don’t even have to say anything! U are saying it all! I’m just re-tweeting! Ha.”

He later added: “That’s why we need a neutral ref. All I’m hearing is how bulls*** the ref was! Haha.”

Abusive and violent messages – including one threatening to “cut” Owens’ genitals and calling him a “gay b******” – flooded the referee’s Facebook wall, with a number of posters calling his decisions “racist”.

Read More http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/10/02/referee-nigel-owens-the-last-thing-i-am-is-racist-91466-29522126/#ixzz1Zie2piAB
"

It's not ok for the player to re-tweet the remarks, but it's ok for them to be reproduced in walesonline?

thats ridiclous, no one should get abuse like that

TheGreyGhost wrote:It's not ok for the player to re-tweet the remarks, but it's ok for them to be reproduced in walesonline?

If the player had retweeted the death threat and said it was wrong then fine, but instead he agreed with the sentiment and added to it.

Youre just being deliberatly silly again. The difference is pretty obvious. For example if you quote someone saying all Samoans are pot boiling savages and disagree with it that doesnt make you a daft racist, but if you quote it and add to it it does.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:It's not ok for the player to re-tweet the remarks, but it's ok for them to be reproduced in walesonline?

Youre just being deliberatly silly again. The difference is pretty obvious. For example if you quote someone saying all Samoans are pot boiling savages and disagree with it that doesnt make you a daft racist, but if you quote it and add to it it does.

and that my friends, is the first lesson of how to deal with wumming on 606v2.

Pete, take a bow

I'm not getting the distinction. Is it not that you infer from his re-tweet that he agrees with it, but infer from its inclusion in WalesOnline that they disagree with it.

Is that not entirely about your perception?

606v2 encourages retweeting, and it fact was actively looking for operatives. If one of the operatives retweeted regarding the incident, would he be racist scum? or a balanced level headed scholar?

I'd hope and expect those people aren't representative of the Samoan nation as a whole. I can understand why Samoa feel hard done by in this WC in general terms, but those reactions are appalling.

If you have threats aimed at the personal safety of a referee being endorsed by a player, that player shouldn't be in international rugby ever again, because they are not fit to take part in sport. It's not war, it's a friendly contest, and the whole thing only works if people are big enough to take it on the chin when things go against them, even if they feel it was unfair. That's not to say that feelings can't be made known through appropriate channels, but this incident goes way beyond that. The guy really needs to grow up.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I'm not getting the distinction. Is it not that you infer from his re-tweet that he agrees with it, but infer from its inclusion in WalesOnline that they disagree with it.

Is that not entirely about your perception?

606v2 encourages retweeting, and it fact was actively looking for operatives. If one of the operatives retweeted regarding the incident, would he be racist scum? or a balanced level headed scholar?

It would depend entirely on whether the comment was endorsed or not by the individual. Whilst re-tweeting the comments he was adding things like "i dont even need to say anything, haha" and such. CLEARLY endorsing the comments.

A newspaper then quotes these tweets as evidence of what was said (without the endearing comments and add-ons to show support for the quotes). I would imagine that in the interest of honest journalism, perhaps a few quotes from the primary source would help readers make their mind up a little bit better than them just saying "the bad man said bad things".

GG you're a smart guy, stop being awkward. I'm not Wayne Barnes!

"Is it not that you infer from his re-tweet that he agrees with it...Is that not entirely about your perception?"

Nope, it isn't, it's based on the words cited above, which are a clear endorsement and encouragement. It's the perfectly obvious inference from what he is reported as having said (assuming he's not being mis-reported), not the mere fact of re-tweeting.

TheGreyGhost wrote:It's not ok for the player to re-tweet the remarks, but it's ok for them to be reproduced in walesonline?

The invention of the threat is where the problem lies, the quoting of the threat is the gathering of evidence.

Are you able to see the difference between these two concepts?

TheGreyGhost wrote:Samoa where gayness and transexuality has been not just tolerated but accepted for centuries.

Is that true, Grey Ghost? I'm genuinely interested to know.

It's true. Google for fa'afafine

Although the mods have asked me not to talk about this topic any more, so I feel I should leave it alone.

luckless the guy is nuts- its a criminal activity in somoa!

thats right its illegal.. how wrong can someone be!!!!

lol

BlueNote wrote:"Is it not that you infer from his re-tweet that he agrees with it...Is that not entirely about your perception?"

Nope, it isn't, it's based on the words cited above, which are a clear endorsement and encouragement. It's the perfectly obvious inference from what he is reported as having said (assuming he's not being mis-reported), not the mere fact of re-tweeting.

But you don't feel Graham Henry used a very similar device when he said of Wayne Barnes "You all saw it, it's not for me to comment, that's the job others, we're going to leave that to others, like you [the media]".

Ali Williams also went on a radio show shortly after the 2007 incident and used reasonably strong language to describe Barnes' performance. But was not cited.

You don't think there's any double standard here?

TheGreyGhost wrote:

BlueNote wrote:"Is it not that you infer from his re-tweet that he agrees with it...Is that not entirely about your perception?"

Nope, it isn't, it's based on the words cited above, which are a clear endorsement and encouragement. It's the perfectly obvious inference from what he is reported as having said (assuming he's not being mis-reported), not the mere fact of re-tweeting.

But you don't feel Graham Henry used a very similar device when he said of Wayne Barnes "You all saw it, it's not for me to comment, that's the job others, we're going to leave that to others, like you [the media]".

Ali Williams also went on a radio show shortly after the 2007 incident and used reasonably strong language to describe Barnes' performance. But was not cited.

You don't think there's any double standard here?

The difference being, at no point did either Ali Williams or Graham Henry accuse Wayne Barnes of being a cheating racist. A week after accusing the IRB of treating the Samoan team like slaves in a holocaust.

Graham Henry may have hinted that he agreed with a question or statement, but he didnt even actually say anything bad himself (then or previously) other than what you got from it subjectively.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that Ali Williams questioned Wayne Barnes performance by calling him rubbish rather than a cheating racist?

He compared him to the faeces of a bovine creature, in less measured syntax.

So your saying that it's just a question of subtlty? rather than a semantic or moral failing? Are you saying that if all in question in the Samoa incident had been slightly more measured in their use of language, then the sentiment was generally acceptable and possibly even correct?

Thanks Grey Ghost, I'll look in to that.