World Rugby wants Marler explanation

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35837685

bumble wrote:

beshocked wrote:bumble wouldn't count as "racial" abuse though would it.

As I said where draw the line? Call him a fat boy instead? Would we get people who are overweight weighing in on the topic?

What about gay boy? Then there's the whole homophobic angle....

Of course none of these are acceptable but a line has to be drawn in the sand.

The community took offence to one man calling another man a gypsy boy..... He could have said much worse.

If every potential slur was dealt with then punishments would go through the roof. Now maybe you might say let's do it. The line where is it?


Media circuses are what some rugby fans enjoy.... looking at you no 7 & 1/2 and Gunsgerms....

Why deal with something in a quick and relatively painless way when you can drag something out - keep on the circus as long as possible....

The line WAS drawn, when it became against the law. Why are people finding that so hard to accept?

Err... the penalty far outweighs the gravity of the offence bit.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

It would clearly demonstrate more than that, and it would still be a positive thing (regardless of whether you think Marler has been appropriately punished or not).

The course of action I noted above isn't about punishment. My views as to whether the 6 Nations Panel took an appropriate position on Marler are separate, and noted on this thread above.

I see, so this could be in addition to a 12 week ban for Marler? Fair enough.

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:True enough, but psychological warfare is one of the best weapons you can wield in a scrum. If it gives you the edge isn't it worth it? Noone is naive enough to think that this is an isolated incident, at least they shouldn't be.

It takes a lot to offend me, I've pretty much heard it all before and have had the misfortune of being subjected to Frankie Boyle a few times. I'm certainly not in the PC brigade.

My comment still stands, Marler's "banter/insulting" was pretty poor, but the only reason we are having this discussion is because it was picked up on the ref's mic. Make no mistake about it, worse will be said in the scrums with noone from world rugby or no mic there to hear it.

This right here is one of the reasons I dislike some of the rugby culture.  This ingrained idea that cheating is ok if you get away with it (not really related to the current point).  In fact, it seems you're suggesting it's ok to racially, etc abuse players as long as you can get away with it.  And we get angry because they try and take away rugby from schools as it teaches kids valuable lessons?

If I came across that way I apologize. It's never ok to racially abuse players.  

As I said I would have attacked Lee on other things if I was attempting to wind him up. Winding a player up for your own advantage is part of the game, and rugby culture.

A truly anal ref could probably find a penalty at just about every breakdown if we are being 100% honest, ranging from not releasing the ball, tackler not rolling away, no armed clear outs etc. If we add verbal insults the game is going to be sterilized beyond all recognition.

Thanks for the clarification.  

But I don't agree with you I don't think there should be any insults. I see it the same as patting someone who knocked-on on the head or cheek. Or any of that Poopie.  It should be a context played within the spirit of the laws.

Talking some trash is part of most sports, professional or otherwise. Boxing, Football, Ice Hockey and of course rugby. The things opposition players have done to my mother defy belief!

But it's all part of the game and how some people play it. Some are talkers some just quietly go about their business. I was a talker but there were certain things that were beneath me. Insulting ethnicity is one of them.

GunsGerms wrote:

Notch wrote:
A fine or a ban wouldn't help him grow as a person. That would.

Fair enough Notch. I don't think it is necessarily world rugby's responsibility to make players grow as people. It is their responsibility to introduce deterrents for racial slurs though.

Agreed. I don't think you can force someone to do that against their will either as they are going to come to it with a closed off and hostile attitude and then its wasting everyones time.

What I could see possibly working is saying you have a choice between a ban or other deterrent or some volunteer work. So you'd be there by choice.

bumble wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

It would clearly demonstrate more than that, and it would still be a positive thing (regardless of whether you think Marler has been appropriately punished or not).

The course of action I noted above isn't about punishment. My views as to whether the 6 Nations Panel took an appropriate position on Marler are separate, and noted on this thread above.

I see, so this could be in addition to a 12 week ban for Marler? Fair enough.

Exactly.

This (these) thread(s) have been very educational. I now know that the g word is offensive and must be removed from newspeak, despite its long history and various uses.

tighthead West country doesn't count as a race though......so you're fair game.

bumble of course we have to agree with absolutely everything in the law.

Nothing can be challenged, UK law is perfect of course.... I am not saying break the law, I am saying challenge the reasoning behind some.

Surely a bit of common sense needs to be used in situations like this. Diffuse a situation before it gets out of hand.

beshocked wrote:tighthead West country doesn't count as a race though......so you're fair game.

bumble of course we have to agree with absolutely everything in the law.

Nothing can be challenged, UK law is perfect of course.... I am not saying break the law, I am saying challenge the reasoning behind some.

Surely a bit of common sense needs to be used in situations like this. Diffuse a situation before it gets out of hand.

I'm sure a Cornishman would disagree with you.

Ob-la-di ob-la-da life goes on bra
La-la how the life goes on

At the end of the day, it's only been a week of talking about it because the Six Nations committee took so long to reach their decision.

I'd have hoped they could've come up with better reasoning than what they did though, particularly with the time it took.

wrfc1980 wrote:Ive heard 'English ba*tard* shouted at the big screens in welsh pubs plenty of times during my Uni days in Wales. I took no offence to it.

Well done. I'm sure the big screen didn't get offended either.

lostinwales wrote:This (these) thread(s) have been very educational. I now know that the g word is offensive and must be removed from newspeak, despite its long history and various uses.

Apologies if I've misread this, but your post seems like a very childish sarcastic remark. Of course the word shouldn't be removed or not said in any form. But at the same time it shouldn't be used to single someone out as different, used to mock them, to use to provoke them, etc. Even my 6 year old daughter knows that, having studied 'values' and diversity in school last week.

Griff wrote:Context is everything, as has been mentioned before.  In my first post on this thread I said that I personally didn't feel that the term used by Marler was particularly offensive, and I've used worse or similar myself when describing other races, people from other countries, etc.  But I'm not a role model and (hopefully) what I'm saying does not get posted on TV.  So yes, in essence it's a little trivial and at the lower end but it is exacerbated and amplified by the stage on which it is said and the audience to which it reaches.  So under that context perhaps it did require some small sanction.  

The other context thing is the way in which it was said.  If he'd tapped his team mate on the shoulder and said "That boy over there is from gypsy heritage" then that is fine.  The term is descriptive and accurate and could be part of a general conversation.  But it was the use of 'Come on Gypsy Boy', said in a confrontational and provocative way, and picking the ONE thing that makes Lee different to everyone else, singles him out, makes him different from the rest of the players on the pitch - that's the difference.  Had he said "come on Welsh boy" then, as one of 15 Welsh players, it wouldn't have been so bad.  And THAT is the way in which context, the use of the word, the timing, etc. all play a part.  The word alone and in isolation is rarely if ever abuse on it's own.  It's when it is targeted, aggressive, confrontational, divisive, etc. that we have problems.  And that can be with ALL descriptive words for people.

Spot on.

Lee didn't take office at what Marler said....people have got offended on his behalf. Seems none of the English folk I used to watch games with in Wales used to get offended by the use of 'Englsih ba*stards'; routinely shouted during games either. Move on, nothing to see. This PC nonsense causes far more issues than it solves.

I bet many of you sat out singing many a traditional rugby song like the Alphabet song.

Once the incident was recorded and broadcast on National TV it ceased to be a matter resolved over a pint off the pitch.

There are plenty of opponents of rugby who will jump on any excuse to attack such laddish behaviour as being unacceptable in the modern era. For this reason alone the custodians of the game needed to condemn the action and should have imposed a ban. The fact that the 6N decided they didn't need to implies to the uninitiated that they don't consider the issue important if not quite condoning it.

Any one who has played the game has heard far worse and while not making what was said acceptable, this no doubt desensitises those sitting in judgement. World Rugby have had to hear what the wider media are saying about rugby ethics, and are simply buying time now hoping it will blow over.

Marler may yet receive a ban if World Rugby are eventually pressed for a statement on their position. Indeed it may be the best for Marler if he actually received a ban and 'justice' seen to be served rather than have this hanging over him for the rest of his career. Players have missed Lions selection in the past for far less.
Eddie Jones has cleverly given him a mild rebuke by dropping him to the bench, but not out of the squad, so it remains to be seen if that is enough to calm the waters.

lostinwales wrote:This (these) thread(s) have been very educational. I now know that the g word is offensive and must be removed from newspeak, despite its long history and various uses.

Gypsy? Here are just some of the questions I would ask about using the 'g' word as you call it...

How are you using the word; in what precise context are you using it and who are you addressing? Are you using it in a derogatory fashion? Do you know how people who are part of that community feel about the word, accepting that opinions are likely varied? Did you take the time to educate yourself about any debate over the words usage that might exist within and without the confines of that community? Do you view their opinions as being as important as your own?

What you call news speak or policing of language is just a clumsy and sometimes over-zealous attempt to get people to reflect more consciously on the potential impact of the words they choose on the people they use them with. Obviously some people like to bring their own ego into it, and judge others, and publicly shame others to make themselves feel big but that can be done with absolutely any idea. Obviously the media loves to do this because that gossipy judgmental style of journalism really sells papers. But that to me doesn't invalidate the idea itself.

Marler himself apologised and fair play to him for recognising that and doing that. There's a reason why players should shake hands after the game and why there is a tradition of post-match camaraderie. Because we recognise that the competitive min set shouldn't spill over into the rest of our lives; but even on the pitch there's a line, a code of conduct both in terms of actions and words

wrfc1980 wrote:Lee didn't take office at what Marler said....people have got offended on his behalf. Seems none of the English folk I used to watch games with in Wales used to get offended by the use of 'Englsih ba*stards'; routinely shouted during games either. Move on, nothing to see. This PC nonsense causes far more issues than it solves.

And that would have been fine had it remained on the pitch.

Anyone remember the Suarez and Evra (I think) incident a few years back. Suarez was accused of calling Evra something, and the excuse was that in his language (Suarez's) that word is an every day word for black. If you google the Spanish for black then you'll see what he meant. But it was the context. What need did he have to point out the colour or say the word to Evra? None, unless attempting to rile or upset. Which is therefore a bad thing and was dealt with by way of a ban and fine (I think). But on the face of it he merely said a colour in his native language. So was he wrong? Can we defend Suarez on this one?

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 gypsies are not a race in my opinion.

Hey Black boy! Would that be that bad? He is black. It's descriptive. It's like if I called hey you! English boy!

Depends on the individual surely whether they see it as an insult and the way it is said.

Someone might find the "boy" more offensive. Also some people get offended about almost anything. Can't please everyone.

I am not supporting Marler's comments - my primary point are that this should have been dealt with already and there are far worse things he could have done or said.

Doesn't make it right - but warrant - a week of media coverage? No definitely not.

The coverage comes as it wasn't dealt with very well.

Griff wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Lee didn't take office at what Marler said....people have got offended on his behalf. Seems none of the English folk I used to watch games with in Wales used to get offended by the use of 'Englsih ba*stards'; routinely shouted during games either. Move on, nothing to see. This PC nonsense causes far more issues than it solves.

And that would have been fine had it remained on the pitch.

Anyone remember the Suarez and Evra (I think) incident a few years back. Suarez was accused of calling Evra something, and the excuse was that in his language (Suarez's) that word is an every day word for black. If you google the Spanish for black then you'll see what he meant. But it was the context. What need did he have to point out the colour or say the word to Evra? None, unless attempting to rile or upset. Which is therefore a bad thing and was dealt with by way of a ban and fine (I think). But on the face of it he merely said a colour in his native language. So was he wrong? Can we defend Suarez on this one?

At the time on other forums I did defend that incident in realtion to the fact that I didn't think Suarez set out to racially abuse him and that the use of the word was part of his culture and accepted. I also thought that he should receive a hefty ban and fine as he clearly did cause offence and ignorance isn't really an excuse.

The one big difficult we have here is with the boundaries we have within our culture (I'm classing the UK and Ireland as one culture here because there are many similarities, including language).  The boundaries are not clearly defined or logical.  There are many nuances.  It seems culturally acceptable to call someone a Paddy, Taff, Jock or Limey (is that still in use?!).  It is frowned upon but seen as good banter/sledging in sport to call someone out because they're fat or ginger.  Disabilities is a no no though.  Race is a no no.  Joking about someone wearing glasses, although a disability of sorts, is OK.  Taking the mick out of someone who is tall is OK, it would seem.  It's not easy, but Marler should have some grasp of the cultural boundaries being British himself.

There are many other cultural nuances here that are seen as crazy elsewhere.  Culturally we're quite anti drugs and someone injecting heroin is seen as doing a bad thing, yet we're quite open to people drinking 10 pints and staggering home.  Elsewhere, that alcohol consumption would be seen as appalling and other places drugs are tolerated.  

Cultural boundaries are difficult things to put into logic.  But as it stands race and ethnicity are definitely on the 'you can't say that' list here, whether we agree with it or not.

So I'm now lead to believe, I was a victim of racial abuse between the ages of 7-17 (approx) in 2 different countries, including assaults. At the time we weren't so focussed on the issue, so I wasn't continuously told that I should feel like a victim, so I didn't feel like a victim. It was just people being idiots, using what they thought of as a weakness to get under my skin. Had I been stood next to a ginger, or a fat person, and we were both being abused, I would not (and still do not) think that my feelings should have been any more important than the person stood beside me, just because of my race/nationality. Had I stood there laughing at the idiots, while the person stood beside was in tears, why should I have been treated like the victim most deserving of justice?

Each case should be judged on merit, on harm caused, rather than this blanket outrage. Everyone has their own view on racism and the laws around it, from those on the far right who believe they should be able to say what they want, to those on the left, many of whom have never experienced racism yet seem to shout the loudest and get offended on behalf on those who may not even be offended. And then there are those somewhere in the middle, who are aware that racism in not acceptable but complain that the laws can go too far in one direction and refer to the PC Brigade. IMHO. Those of you who appear to be outraged that Marler has escaped punishment, your arguments don't help race equality, they only push the 'middlers' towards the right, exasperated at what they see as over reaction. And for what? To win an argument on a forum?

IMHO this incident and the furore surrounding it is an insult to people who have been the victims of real racial abuse and only serves to undermine what they have been through, while pushing those on the fence further away.

Griff wrote:The one big difficult we have here is with the boundaries we have within our culture (I'm classing the UK and Ireland as one culture here because there are many similarities, including language).  The boundaries are not clearly defined or logical.  There are many nuances.  It seems culturally acceptable to call someone a Paddy, Taff, Jock or Limey (is that still in use?!).  It is frowned upon but seen as good banter/sledging in sport to call someone out because they're fat or ginger.  Disabilities is a no no though.  Race is a no no.  Joking about someone wearing glasses, although a disability of sorts, is OK.  Taking the mick out of someone who is tall is OK, it would seem.  It's not easy, but Marler should have some grasp of the cultural boundaries being British himself.

Most people would be reprimanded / punished / fired for doing any of those in the workplace.

What is real racial abuse though?

Hoonercat wrote:

IMHO this incident and the furore surrounding it is an insult to people who have been the victims of real racial abuse and only serves to undermine what they have been through, while pushing those on the fence further away.

That's an astonishingly ignorant thing to say.

TightHEAD wrote:

beshocked wrote:tighthead West country doesn't count as a race though......so you're fair game.

bumble of course we have to agree with absolutely everything in the law.

Nothing can be challenged, UK law is perfect of course.... I am not saying break the law, I am saying challenge the reasoning behind some.

Surely a bit of common sense needs to be used in situations like this. Diffuse a situation before it gets out of hand.

I'm sure a Cornishman would disagree with you.

Ob-la-di ob-la-da life goes on bra
La-la how the life goes on

Yup, Cornish does. We are a national minority. All those Cornish jokes could be taken as racist,

Personally I wouldn't get upset about them though, used to it by now after spending many years in Plymoith where they hate us more than anywhere

Interesting how much more discussion this has sparked than Francis's ban for contact with the eye area. His 8-week ban is a handy reference point.

I'm with doctor grey on this. It can't be completely dismissed, but at the same time we need to keep it in proportion. The sheer amount of confusion that the coaches and unions have managed to generate over it is a pretty clear indication that it's a grey area.

The bottom line is that it was a racial epithet and Marler shouldn't have used it. That needs a proper response. The RFU's dismissal is unhelpful once you consider the wider social context. Rugby is a game that plays on its inclusivity, and anything that works counter to that needs to be addressed.

Against that, you have to set the mitigating factors.

I genuinely don't think Marler intended it as racial abuse or even thought of it as racist until after he'd said it. I do think he was trying to wind Lee up (and succeeded), but only in the way that all front rowers try to wind each other up. I'd be very surprised if Lee wasn't also trying to wind Marler up, though that generally takes several headbutts to achieve. The epithet itself was also pretty mild - on a level with "gingernut" or "fathead" if it weren't for the racial angle.

The fact that Marler spontaneously apologised at half time - before being warned by Jones and probably before he knew it had even been picked up by the mic - should count for a lot. It says to me that he didn't realise the problem with what he was saying when he said it, but went out of his way to correct his mistake at the first opportunity. I suspect that is a major factor in why the RFU and 6 Nations didn't take things any further.

If I were in Marler's shoes, I would issue a public apology and donate my match fee to an appropriate charity. If I were in World Rugby's shoes, I think an appropriate response might be a suspended ban: recognising that it's an aberration, and that Marler has shown genuine and immediate remorse, but making it clear that it won't be tolerated.

bumble wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

IMHO this incident and the furore surrounding it is an insult to people who have been the victims of real racial abuse and only serves to undermine what they have been through, while pushing those on the fence further away.

That's an astonishingly ignorant thing to say.

Yes incredibly ignorant.

Griff wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Lee didn't take office at what Marler said....people have got offended on his behalf. Seems none of the English folk I used to watch games with in Wales used to get offended by the use of 'Englsih ba*stards'; routinely shouted during games either. Move on, nothing to see. This PC nonsense causes far more issues than it solves.

And that would have been fine had it remained on the pitch.

Anyone remember the Suarez and Evra (I think) incident a few years back. Suarez was accused of calling Evra something, and the excuse was that in his language (Suarez's) that word is an every day word for black. If you google the Spanish for black then you'll see what he meant. But it was the context. What need did he have to point out the colour or say the word to Evra? None, unless attempting to rile or upset. Which is therefore a bad thing and was dealt with by way of a ban and fine (I think). But on the face of it he merely said a colour in his native language. So was he wrong? Can we defend Suarez on this one?

Who are Suarez and Evra?

aucklandlaurie wrote:Who are Suarez and Evra?

Characters in Coronation Street. It's a bit like Shortland Street, but with more cobbles.

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Who are Suarez and Evra?

Characters in Coronation Street. It's a bit like Shortland Street, but with more cobbles.

bumble wrote:

Griff wrote:The one big difficult we have here is with the boundaries we have within our culture (I'm classing the UK and Ireland as one culture here because there are many similarities, including language).  The boundaries are not clearly defined or logical.  There are many nuances.  It seems culturally acceptable to call someone a Paddy, Taff, Jock or Limey (is that still in use?!).  It is frowned upon but seen as good banter/sledging in sport to call someone out because they're fat or ginger.  Disabilities is a no no though.  Race is a no no.  Joking about someone wearing glasses, although a disability of sorts, is OK.  Taking the mick out of someone who is tall is OK, it would seem.  It's not easy, but Marler should have some grasp of the cultural boundaries being British himself.

Most people would be reprimanded / punished / fired for doing any of those in the workplace.

One time a guy I just met and didn't know at all gave me some 'banter' about being ginger. So I gave him some 'banter' back about being bald. He didn't like it at all! He got very offended and huffy. Apparently ginger hair is fair game but baldness is off limits

Obviously I'm wasn't going to let that person get to me but I remember it because I thought the double standard was very funny. Here this guy was thinking it's 'culturally acceptable' to give me stick about my hair colour but me giving him stick about his lack of hair is over the line. I probably wouldn't respond in kind now I'm a bit older and wiser. If you're on a rugby pitch thats fine, but in a pub? Waste of energy. Just shrug it off. Similarly if an English bloke who didn't know me came up to me and started calling me 'Paddy this' or 'Paddy that' I'd walk away but I probably would just tell him to foxtrot oscar if that wasn't an option. I certainly wouldn't pander to his idea of what I'm meant to find acceptable. He's not important.

Karma has a funny sense of humour since I'm now going a bit bald and I'm still a blydi ginger

Ok, I'm aware of the sensitivity around this issue and the amount of post deletions relating to it. I take no personal umbrage at Marler's comment but partially understand how (some) others might. I also acknowledge and respect that he apologised of his own volition and that Lee accepted said apology. I want to make clear that I do think all these factors ought to be taken into account.

I just want to put out my views and be done with it. I still feel highly doubtful regarding 6N's initial decision to do nothing. It's not a question of any personal sentiment towards the offender but a matter of the precedent this sets. Would you go up to a black person and call them "black boy"? If not, why is it any different with someone from a traveller community?

I couldn't have cared less if Marler had made a derogatory comment on Lee's character or ability. But in my opinion anything relating to racial/ethnic/cultural/social background should be left strictly to one side as a matter of principle.

For example, JoeBloggs01 made a comment once rambling about a couple of over-sensitive Welsh people and closed with the remark "Welsh t**ts". Now while my skin is reasonably thick and I chose not to feel offended, it's not that hard to imagine how it would tick more than a few people off. Any intended insult that makes a reference to background can be interpreted as over-generalising and therefore slightly prejudiced. It may not always cause an uproar but if it's allowed to repeat frequently enough it's going to cause serious friction.

GunsGerms wrote:

bumble wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

IMHO this incident and the furore surrounding it is an insult to people who have been the victims of real racial abuse and only serves to undermine what they have been through, while pushing those on the fence further away.

That's an astonishingly ignorant thing to say.

Yes incredibly ignorant.

Have either of you been both physically and verbally abused because of your race or nationality, regularly over a period of time?

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Who are Suarez and Evra?

Characters in Coronation Street. It's a bit like Shortland Street, but with more cobbles.

Thanks Cyril, but I struggle to see how something in a TV soap has anything to do with Rugby.

Hoonercat wrote:

Have either of you been both physically and verbally abused because of your race or nationality, regularly over a period of time?

Not regularly. Why would that have a thing to do with the incident we are discussing?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Who are Suarez and Evra?

Characters in Coronation Street. It's a bit like Shortland Street, but with more cobbles.

Thanks Cyril, but I struggle to see how something in a TV soap has anything to do with Rugby.

Knowsit17 wrote:Ok, I'm aware of the sensitivity around this issue and the amount of post deletions relating to it. I take no personal umbrage at Marler's comment but partially understand how (some) others might. I also acknowledge and respect that he apologised of his own volition and that Lee accepted said apology. I want to make clear that I do think all these factors ought to be taken into account.

I just want to put out my views and be done with it. I still feel highly doubtful regarding 6N's initial decision to do nothing. It's not a question of any personal sentiment towards the offender but a matter of the precedent this sets. Would you go up to a black person and call them "black boy"? If not, why is it any different with someone from a traveller community?

I couldn't have cared less if Marler had made a derogatory comment on Lee's character or ability. But in my opinion anything relating to racial/ethnic/cultural/social background should be left strictly to one side as a matter of principle.

For example, JoeBloggs01 made a comment once rambling about a couple of over-sensitive Welsh people and closed with the remark "Welsh t**ts". Now while my skin is reasonably thick and I chose not to feel offended, it's not that hard to imagine how it would tick more than a few people off. Any intended insult that makes a reference to background can be interpreted as over-generalising and therefore slightly prejudiced. It may not always cause an uproar but if it's allowed to repeat frequently enough it's going to cause serious friction.

Well said.

Knowsit17 wrote:
For example, JoeBloggs01 made a comment once rambling about a couple of over-sensitive Welsh people and closed with the remark "Welsh t**ts". Now while my skin is reasonably thick and I chose not to feel offended, it's not that hard to imagine how it would tick more than a few people off. Any intended insult that makes a reference to background can be interpreted as over-generalising and therefore slightly prejudiced. It may not always cause an uproar but if it's allowed to repeat frequently enough it's going to cause serious friction.

Interesting that being called a "Welsh" tw@ is more offensive than just being called a "plain" tw@ in general. Being called a "tw@" is the insult, unless being called "Welsh" offends you?  

Personally I'd take more offence at being called a "tw@" as opposed to a "Scottish tw@", after all being called Scottish is one of the best compliments I can think of

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Who are Suarez and Evra?

Characters in Coronation Street. It's a bit like Shortland Street, but with more cobbles.

Thanks Cyril, but I struggle to see how something in a TV soap has anything to do with Rugby.

Kieran Brookes would beg to differ

http://www.northampton-news-hp.co.uk/Northampton-Saints-unknown-acting-career-Kieran/story-28329902-detail/story.html

Knowsit17 wrote:For example, JoeBloggs01 made a comment once rambling about a couple of over-sensitive Welsh people and closed with the remark "Welsh t**ts". Now while my skin is reasonably thick and I chose not to feel offended, it's not that hard to imagine how it would tick more than a few people off. Any intended insult that makes a reference to background can be interpreted as over-generalising and therefore slightly prejudiced. It may not always cause an uproar but if it's allowed to repeat frequently enough it's going to cause serious friction.

Your skin is reasonable thick, but what if there had been someone next to you with a more sensitive nature, for arguments' sake an overweight woman who received verbal abuse from the same person about her weight and was left very distraught. Why should the crime against you be deemed more serious than that against the woman, given that you have the ability to shrug it off?

Hoonercat wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

bumble wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

IMHO this incident and the furore surrounding it is an insult to people who have been the victims of real racial abuse and only serves to undermine what they have been through, while pushing those on the fence further away.

That's an astonishingly ignorant thing to say.

Yes incredibly ignorant.

Have either of you been both physically and verbally abused because of your race or nationality, regularly over a period of time?

How is that any of your business or of any relevance?

Knowsit17 wrote:Ok, I'm aware of the sensitivity around this issue and the amount of post deletions relating to it. I take no personal umbrage at Marler's comment but partially understand how (some) others might. I also acknowledge and respect that he apologised of his own volition and that Lee accepted said apology. I want to make clear that I do think all these factors ought to be taken into account.

I just want to put out my views and be done with it. I still feel highly doubtful regarding 6N's initial decision to do nothing. It's not a question of any personal sentiment towards the offender but a matter of the precedent this sets. Would you go up to a black person and call them "black boy"? If not, why is it any different with someone from a traveller community?

I couldn't have cared less if Marler had made a derogatory comment on Lee's character or ability. But in my opinion anything relating to racial/ethnic/cultural/social background should be left strictly to one side as a matter of principle.

For example, JoeBloggs01 made a comment once rambling about a couple of over-sensitive Welsh people and closed with the remark "Welsh t**ts". Now while my skin is reasonably thick and I chose not to feel offended, it's not that hard to imagine how it would tick more than a few people off. Any intended insult that makes a reference to background can be interpreted as over-generalising and therefore slightly prejudiced. It may not always cause an uproar but if it's allowed to repeat frequently enough it's going to cause serious friction.

I see no difference if the remark related to Lees character or ability or his race. Lee still handled the situation wrongly.

Notch wrote:
One time a guy I just met and didn't know at all gave me some 'banter' about being ginger.

You're ginger??

This changes everything!

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Notch wrote:
One time a guy I just met and didn't know at all gave me some 'banter' about being ginger.

You're ginger??

This changes everything!

Yep, I've just put him on my Foe list!

GunsGerms wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

bumble wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

IMHO this incident and the furore surrounding it is an insult to people who have been the victims of real racial abuse and only serves to undermine what they have been through, while pushing those on the fence further away.

That's an astonishingly ignorant thing to say.

Yes incredibly ignorant.

Have either of you been both physically and verbally abused because of your race or nationality, regularly over a period of time?

How is that any of your business or of any relevance?

You accuse me of being ignorant for suggestion that the Marler incident rates right at the bottom where racism is concerned, I'd like to know if you've had personal experience of racism to understand your perspective. But if you'd rather not answer that's your prerogative.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Lee didn't take office at what Marler said....people have got offended on his behalf. Seems none of the English folk I used to watch games with in Wales used to get offended by the use of 'Englsih ba*stards'; routinely shouted during games either. Move on, nothing to see. This PC nonsense causes far more issues than it solves.

And that would have been fine had it remained on the pitch.

Anyone remember the Suarez and Evra (I think) incident a few years back.  Suarez was accused of calling Evra something, and the excuse was that in his language (Suarez's) that word is an every day word for black.  If you google the Spanish for black then you'll see what he meant.  But it was the context.  What need did he have to point out the colour or say the word to Evra?  None, unless attempting to rile or upset.  Which is therefore a bad thing and was dealt with by way of a ban and fine (I think).  But on the face of it he merely said a colour in his native language.  So was he wrong?  Can we defend Suarez on this one?

Who are Suarez and Evra?

I get the sneaky feeling you know the answer and are trying to do the whole 'not on a rugby forum' thing, but I'll play along: they are soccer players. Former English Premiership and current international players. Famous in some parts.

Notch wrote:

lostinwales wrote:This (these) thread(s) have been very educational. I now know that the g word is offensive and must be removed from newspeak, despite its long history and various uses.

Gypsy? Here are just some of the questions I would ask about using the 'g' word as you call it...

How are you using the word; in what precise context are you using it and who are you addressing? Are you using it in a derogatory fashion? Do you know how people who are part of that community feel about the word, accepting that opinions are likely varied? Did you take the time to educate yourself about any debate over the words usage that might exist within and without the confines of that community? Do you view their opinions as being as important as your own?

What you call news speak or policing of language is just a clumsy and sometimes over-zealous attempt to get people to reflect more consciously on the potential impact of the words they choose on the people they use them with. Obviously some people like to bring their own ego into it, and judge others, and publicly shame others to make themselves feel big but that can be done with absolutely any idea. Obviously the media loves to do this because that gossipy judgmental style of journalism really sells papers. But that to me doesn't invalidate the idea itself.

Marler himself apologised and fair play to him for recognising that and doing that. There's a reason why players should shake hands after the game and why there is a tradition of post-match camaraderie. Because we recognise that the competitive min set shouldn't spill over into the rest of our lives; but even on the pitch there's a line, a code of conduct both in terms of actions and words

Well I'll repeat (sort of) what I wrote on one of the threads that were taken down. The words used and the context are a possible symptom of a situation. Systematic use of such terms can be very damaging, but with isolated use you have to consider context and cause in more detail. I'd also add that symptoms are a lot easier to track and to treat than causes. It's easier to stop someone using derogatory language than to stop them thinking that a particular group of people is somehow less worthy than another.

I'd argue that the attitude is much more important to address than the language.

And I will add that I had no idea the word gypsy is somehow offensive (and don't understand why given its widespread use, other than one set of people suddenly deciding it is so.). I do understand that derivations of this word could be, but then I wouldn't use those words anyway.

Griff wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Notch wrote:
One time a guy I just met and didn't know at all gave me some 'banter' about being ginger.

You're ginger??

This changes everything!

Yep, I've just put him on my Foe list!

Thats the same joke RDW made the last time I said I was ginger

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:
For example, JoeBloggs01 made a comment once rambling about a couple of over-sensitive Welsh people and closed with the remark "Welsh t**ts". Now while my skin is reasonably thick and I chose not to feel offended, it's not that hard to imagine how it would tick more than a few people off. Any intended insult that makes a reference to background can be interpreted as over-generalising and therefore slightly prejudiced. It may not always cause an uproar but if it's allowed to repeat frequently enough it's going to cause serious friction.

Interesting that being called a "Welsh" tw@ is more offensive than just being called a "plain" tw@ in general. Being called a "tw@" is the insult, unless being called "Welsh" offends you?  

Personally I'd take more offence at being called a "tw@" as opposed to a "Scottish tw@", after all being called Scottish is one of the best compliments I can think of

Wonderful way of looking at it

It's one of those things which divides opinion fairly sharply. I suppose my own view is I'd rather be insulted as an individual than as a member of a defined group. The tone can make a big difference. If someone called you a tw@ in such a way that implied it was because you're Welsh/Scottish/English rather than through just individually being a tw@ a fair few would probably take offence in theory.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Notch wrote:
One time a guy I just met and didn't know at all gave me some 'banter' about being ginger.

You're ginger??

This changes everything!

606v2 always on top of diversity and inclusiveness