Marler to Face World Rugby Hearing

First topic message reminder :

From BBC

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/35887510

GunsGerms wrote:I think you need to educate yourself as to exactly what constitutes racism in the country you live in rather than making a fool of yourself online. Your definition or my definition of race is completely irrelevant.

So you can't define 'race', then? Here's some reading for you:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/01/racism-science-human-genomes-darwin
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

I reckon both my daughters, who can be legally classified as mixed race have been racially abused in the last few weeks.

The younger, who looks Indian, has been called various P a k i based insults by white people (she actually objected to the B itch, part of the insult more), the elder who looks white is routinely abused by non-whites within her school because she looks different.

In all cases are they, and me, really "choosing" to be offended?

The words 'English bas*ard' are banded around regular in Scotland and Wales when they are playing England at any sport. Where's the PC brigade when that happens?

So you are claiming that nothing can be racist, because at DNA level we are really all the same?

Needless to say the law disagrees with you:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

Its all one sided this PC rubbish. What happened to Rio Ferdinand when he called Ashley Cole a 'Choc Ice' for his defense of john terry? Nothing.

wrfc1980 wrote:The words 'English bas*ard' are banded around regular in Scotland and Wales when they are playing England at any sport. Where's the PC brigade when that happens?

Come on, this is getting silly.... Are you saying its not factual.. Are they not, English ? If so, they should not be playing for England. And without checking birth certificates against marriage ones, how will we know the "b...d" is not also true...

LondonTiger wrote:I reckon both my daughters, who can be legally classified as mixed race have been racially abused in the last few weeks.

The younger, who looks Indian, has been called various P a k i based insults by white people (she actually objected to the B itch, part of the insult more), the elder who looks white is routinely abused by non-whites within her school because she looks different.

In all cases are they, and me, really "choosing" to be offended?

Being offended is not an emotion, hence it is a choice.
Being upset or angered is an emotion, hence it is not a choice.

Hoonercat wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Comfort wrote:the difference between 'welsh boy' and 'gypsy boy' is thus:

Wales is a country, of which numerous races of people can call home and be welsh. (e.g. there are white welsh people, black welsh people, gypsy welsh people, muslim welsh people, see where im going with this...?)

Gypsys are a race of people, they dont have a country/territory, so you can be a gypsy and still be welsh. Racisim and xenophobia are different things entirely, that concept shouldnt be hard to comprehend.

Unfortunately this situation wasnt handled correctly at the first time of asking (as per the laws of the game/the law in general, any racial slurs are illegal in the UK and in the laws of rugby), hence it has been reviewed by World Rugby. The level of offence the insult causes has no relevance to it being against the rules of the game.

I understand Samson Lee doesnt want it to be a big deal, Gatland even came out on his behalf to try and play it down, it doesnt matter though as Marler broke the rules of the game, thus the incident needs to be looked at again. Personally i think its a mess, but one that needs to be dealt with so we can all close the lid on it and move on with a precedant set.

No racism as defined by law includes discrimination against someone based on where they are from too. Their nationality, culture etc. Jeremy Clarkson can attest to this.

Very true, yet the chances of a similar media frenzy for being called Welsh/Scottish/English boy are pretty much non existent. Is this because the PC Brigade see gypsies as a lesser race? Why do they feel it is more derogatory to be called gypsy boy than Welsh, Scottish or English boy?

Such a lame weak argument. Essentially you are basing your justification of one thing based on something else "similar" going un-punished. That's like saying OJ Simpson got off scott free after killing someone so I should be allowed kill someone.

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I reckon both my daughters, who can be legally classified as mixed race have been racially abused in the last few weeks.

The younger, who looks Indian, has been called various P a k i based insults by white people (she actually objected to the B itch, part of the insult more), the elder who looks white is routinely abused by non-whites within her school because she looks different.

In all cases are they, and me, really "choosing" to be offended?

Being offended is not an emotion, hence it is a choice.
Being upset or angered is an emotion, hence it is not a choice.

There are times to be pedantic - frankly this is not one of those times. When someone does thinks designed to hurt, anger and cause offence it is completely reasonable to feel hurt, angered and offended.

LondonTiger wrote:So you are claiming that nothing can be racist, because at DNA level we are really all the same?

Needless to say the law disagrees with you:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

Correct. I feel such crimes should be reclassified under different headings, to give them a truer title.

The law does disagree with me, indeed, but then it is merely an opinion.

Duty281 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I think you need to educate yourself as to exactly what constitutes racism in the country you live in rather than making a fool of yourself online. Your definition or my definition of race is completely irrelevant.

So you can't define 'race', then? Here's some reading for you:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/01/racism-science-human-genomes-darwin
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

I don't need to define it. It is already defined in UK legislation. Go educate yourself on it. You are coming across really ignorant.

GunsGerms wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Comfort wrote:the difference between 'welsh boy' and 'gypsy boy' is thus:

Wales is a country, of which numerous races of people can call home and be welsh. (e.g. there are white welsh people, black welsh people, gypsy welsh people, muslim welsh people, see where im going with this...?)

Gypsys are a race of people, they dont have a country/territory, so you can be a gypsy and still be welsh. Racisim and xenophobia are different things entirely, that concept shouldnt be hard to comprehend.

Unfortunately this situation wasnt handled correctly at the first time of asking (as per the laws of the game/the law in general, any racial slurs are illegal in the UK and in the laws of rugby), hence it has been reviewed by World Rugby. The level of offence the insult causes has no relevance to it being against the rules of the game.

I understand Samson Lee doesnt want it to be a big deal, Gatland even came out on his behalf to try and play it down, it doesnt matter though as Marler broke the rules of the game, thus the incident needs to be looked at again. Personally i think its a mess, but one that needs to be dealt with so we can all close the lid on it and move on with a precedant set.

No racism as defined by law includes discrimination against someone based on where they are from too. Their nationality, culture etc. Jeremy Clarkson can attest to this.

Very true, yet the chances of a similar media frenzy for being called Welsh/Scottish/English boy are pretty much non existent. Is this because the PC Brigade see gypsies as a lesser race? Why do they feel it is more derogatory to be called gypsy boy than Welsh, Scottish or English boy?

Such a lame weak argument. Essentially you are basing your justification of one thing based on something else "similar" going un-punished. That's like saying OJ Simpson got off scott free after killing someone so I should be allowed kill someone.

No, it really isn't anything like it. But at least it helps you avoid thinking about why you consider gypsy boy to be more worthy of frothiness than Welsh boy.

GunsGerms wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:I think you need to educate yourself as to exactly what constitutes racism in the country you live in rather than making a fool of yourself online. Your definition or my definition of race is completely irrelevant.

So you can't define 'race', then? Here's some reading for you:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/01/racism-science-human-genomes-darwin
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-10/WUiS-GSRD-071098.php

I don't need to define it. It is already defined in UK legislation. Go educate yourself on it. You are coming across really ignorant.

Please educate yourself on 'race' - there is no such thing! Do what I did and read up about it (the opposite of ignorance).

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:So you are claiming that nothing can be racist, because at DNA level we are really all the same?

Needless to say the law disagrees with you:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

Correct. I feel such crimes should be reclassified under different headings, to give them a truer title.

The law does disagree with me, indeed, but then it is merely an opinion.

Whether intentional or not, your expression of your opinion has seemingly placed you in the camp that says it is ok to verbally abuse people using words of hatred, and anyone upset by this is merely PC.

I hope people open and read your collapsed text, No9, because it's about the most sensible thing anyone has written on the topic.

Again, trying to keep things in perspective:
1) It was wrong. It merits a serious response and an appropriate punishment.
2) Marler's subsequent actions suggest that his intent was to wind up Lee not racially abuse him and once he'd realised what he'd done he took steps to apologise. That counts for a lot
3) None of the rugby authorities come out of this looking good. The RFU, WRU, Gatland, and Jones have all misjudged their responses and come out of it looking dismissive. The IRB on the other hand run the risk of looking heavy handed. Where's Judge Blackett when you need him?
4) It seems likely that Marler will now cop a ban. I hope, given the mildness of the insult and his subsequent actions, that it's very much at the lower end of the scale. It's helpful to keep it in perspective with the 8 week ban for contact with the eye area that arose from the same game.

Anyway, I now fully expect that the independent inquiry will reveal that Marler is in fact powered by Microsoft chatbot Tay, and will be removed for reprogramming. It would explain quite a lot:

Godwin's law in action

LondonTiger wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I reckon both my daughters, who can be legally classified as mixed race have been racially abused in the last few weeks.

The younger, who looks Indian, has been called various P a k i based insults by white people (she actually objected to the B itch, part of the insult more), the elder who looks white is routinely abused by non-whites within her school because she looks different.

In all cases are they, and me, really "choosing" to be offended?

Being offended is not an emotion, hence it is a choice.
Being upset or angered is an emotion, hence it is not a choice.

There are times to be pedantic - frankly this is not one of those times. When someone does thinks designed to hurt, anger and cause offence it is completely reasonable to feel hurt, angered and offended.

Hurt and anger? Yes, you can feel those things, for they are emotions.
Offended? No, that is not an emotion, it is an invention of the society we live in.

LondonTiger wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:So you are claiming that nothing can be racist, because at DNA level we are really all the same?

Needless to say the law disagrees with you:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

Correct. I feel such crimes should be reclassified under different headings, to give them a truer title.

The law does disagree with me, indeed, but then it is merely an opinion.

Whether intentional or not, your expression of your opinion has seemingly placed you in the camp that says it is ok to verbally abuse people using words of hatred, and anyone upset by this is merely PC.

Not what he said at all, he said those crimes should be reclassified.

LondonTiger wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:So you are claiming that nothing can be racist, because at DNA level we are really all the same?

Needless to say the law disagrees with you:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

Correct. I feel such crimes should be reclassified under different headings, to give them a truer title.

The law does disagree with me, indeed, but then it is merely an opinion.

Whether intentional or not, your expression of your opinion has seemingly placed you in the camp that says it is ok to verbally abuse people using words of hatred, and anyone upset by this is merely PC.

Depends on whether you agree with freedoms of speech or if you are happy for the government of the day to outlaw whatever they want.

Hoonercat wrote:

No, it really isn't anything like it. But at least it helps you avoid thinking about why you consider gypsy boy to be more worthy of frothiness than Welsh boy.

You really are doing your best to justify racism. Such weak justification.

LondonTiger wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:So you are claiming that nothing can be racist, because at DNA level we are really all the same?

Needless to say the law disagrees with you:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/

Correct. I feel such crimes should be reclassified under different headings, to give them a truer title.

The law does disagree with me, indeed, but then it is merely an opinion.

Whether intentional or not, your expression of your opinion has seemingly placed you in the camp that says it is ok to verbally abuse people using words of hatred, and anyone upset by this is merely PC.

Sticks and stones may break my bones etc.

I have never quite understood why anyone can be hurt by the simple expression of words. It seems rather strange to me.

The world would be a hell of a lot better if people got along and were nice to each other, true enough, but if someone calls you a 'gypsy boy' - who cares? It's just two words.

GunsGerms wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

No, it really isn't anything like it. But at least it helps you avoid thinking about why you consider gypsy boy to be more worthy of frothiness than Welsh boy.

You really are doing your best to justify racism. Such weak justification.

 

As someone who spent 12 years being abused due to my perceived race, I can assure you that I'm not trying to justify racism and understand the realities of it far better than you ever will. Now go away and throw your silly little accusations at someone else, the racism card won't work on me I'm afraid.

id love to know some of your ages, I'd be guessing very low or high figures judging by some of the responses from people who think this is all a bit OTT.

I've said previously Id have expected market to cop a week or 2 ban between this and the elbow on evans when he was prone. unfortunately due to the mess this has become it'll be more than that, when it didn't need to.

poor four, knows it, no9 & London tiger

Given that Marler escaped punishment as it was the heat of the moment and he said sorry not really surprised its being reviewd higher up. When has heat of the moment ever been a legit reason for gettinng off?

Banter isn't what it used to be.

I think all the PC lefties should be rounded up and swapped with genuine Syrian refugees.

Poorfour wrote:I hope people open and read your collapsed text, No9, because it's about the most sensible thing anyone has written on the topic.

Thanks...

I really think the best outcome for this, would be for them both (Lee and Marler) to put this media hype to good use, and both work on an anti-racism "advert". The type of information film that gets shown on TV, in the Cinema and on bill-boards... But this hype to good use.

Londontiger there is a difference between something being acceptable and something being dragged on and on.

What Marler did was wrong but the way it's been handled has been absolutely appalling.

If someone is abused/bullied the incident should be quickly dealt with. it should be handled with in the best manner.

Is more than 2 weeks of media circus the best manner?

I am sure at least once in your life you've been subject to discrimination whether it's for your accent,class,skin colour,nationality, height, weight,hair colour etc. Doesn't make it right but I do not see this gypsy comment as something exceptionally bad. Do you honestly think "Gypsy Boy" ranks highly compared to other potential abuse?

It was something said in the heat of the moment. It was wrong. At least Lee got an apology. Marler admitted what he did was wrong. Now you might not think that's important. To me that is.

Some people label abuse as "banter". It's only "banter" if there is a mutual feeling that there is no malice involved. The problem with some "banter" is that not everyone is involved in the joke.

I hesitate to wade into this debate, but shall do so nonetheless as certain rather distasteful statements should be challenged.

1) What Marler said to Lee constitutes racism. The (UK) law is quite clear, and has been quoted numerous times by Guns and others. Gypsies, for the purpose of UK law, constitute a 'racial group'*. Marler thus delivered a racist insult. That had he said "fat boy" or "ginger" it would have been fine is neither here nor there, he didn't, he insulted Lee based on his belonging to the Gypsy community.

2) You can argue that the law is wrong (though what constitutes 'wrong' exactly is up for debate), that it's ridiculous, PC gone mad, etc. but it is still the law. You could I suppose argue that 'racism' in a rugby context should mean something different than what it does in law - after all, assault is permitted on a rugby field within the legal boundaries of the game - but that would IMO be a strange argument. No, the laws of rugby set out that racism is not acceptable, the laws of the land decree what racism is.

3) Lee was offended/hurt/upset, as pointed out by GF, from his reaction. That he accepted Marler's apology is a fine thing, but does not change the fact. Which leads to...

4) Marler apologised, and Lee accepted the apology. All well and good, and should act as mitigating circumstances in any sentencing that occurs. What it should not do, IMO, is mean that the offence should be forgotten. As Notch points out, when a player is victim of a tip-tackle, or punched, and the offender apologises to the victim, that does not mean it won't subsequently be dealt with by a citing committee. Going further, if every time someone did something wrong they could get away with by apologising, it would be a funny old world.

As such, I don't see how Marler can/should avoid a ban. Racism must not and cannot be tolerated in our society, and what Marler did was racist. I don't think the punishment should be too harsh, given his fairly immediate contrition, and indeed Lee's acceptance thereof, but I do think it's reasonable that World Rugby weren't satisfied with the outcome. I don't think sending out a message that rugby is happy for racism to occur on the pitch is a good thing.


*yes I know scientifically speaking there's no such thing as 'race', but we are talking legal here, I'm using the words 'racial group' as they are set out in law, i.e. "a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins." It's clearly stated that "Gypsies and some travellers [...] would be included within this definition."

That sums it up perfectly for me Chelsea. I add I don't think Marler is a bad guy and I doubt very much he is a racist. However, he did what he did and therefore a punishment would be fair albeit probably a minor one in my opinion.

Hoonercat wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

No, it really isn't anything like it. But at least it helps you avoid thinking about why you consider gypsy boy to be more worthy of frothiness than Welsh boy.

You really are doing your best to justify racism. Such weak justification.

 

As someone who spent 12 years being abused due to my perceived race, I can assure you that I'm not trying to justify racism and understand the realities of it far better than you ever will. Now go away and throw your silly little accusations at someone else, the racism card won't work on me I'm afraid.

You don't know anything about me pal. You are showing your ignorance once again.

Blah blah blah, much ado about nothing.

Can't believe people are so offended by this, had he called him Fat boy would people still be banging on about it?

All rather sad and had England lost the game it would have all been forgotten by now.

I still don't see where the insult is or how it is in any way derogatory, it's almost that the mere use of the word Gypsy constitutes it being racism which isn't the case.

"Fat boy" isn't a racist insult, "Gypsy boy" is. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand...

Comfort wrote:id love to know some of your ages, I'd be guessing very low or high figures judging by some of the responses from people who think this is all a bit OTT.

I've said previously Id have expected market to cop a week or 2 ban between this and the elbow on evans when he was prone. unfortunately due to the mess this has become it'll be more than that, when it didn't need to.

poor four, knows it, no9 & London tiger

For what its worth I'm in my 50s... and I have NEVER condoned racism in any way or form... What I've been saying is that Marler is no saint, but his actions in apologising, to me, also show his as no racist. Apologising, as he did, at half time, without being told to do so, demonstrates he realised he was wrong and he went to make things right. I dont believe his intend was racist. I believe it was no more than the usual sledging that goes on. But he is a figurehead, and needs to answer for what he said.

In an earlier post (which is a little tongue in cheek by me, as I think these POSTS are OTT, not the action), I said (for those who bothered to look deeper), that the best course of action for all on this, that is the players, the Rugby Unions and the governing bodies, would be to produce an "anti-racism" advert (campaign) and get Joe Marler and Samon Lee to head it (star in the adverts)... It would put some real positive information out there from a really low point in the 6 Nations..

Now, as I said.... I see these threads as being OTT and NOT the actions of the players.. Said my bit, keeping shut on it now..

Mad for Chelsea wrote:"Fat boy" isn't a racist insult, "Gypsy boy" is. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand...

But its not a race, Fatty's are everywhere and just as easily offended.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:"Fat boy" isn't a racist insult, "Gypsy boy" is. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand...

I'm struggling to understand what part of that is insulting.

TightHEAD wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:"Fat boy" isn't a racist insult, "Gypsy boy" is. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand...

But its not a race, Fatty's are everywhere and just as easily offended.

FFS, it's a 'racial group' in the eyes of the law (see Guns's links, they state it so quite clearly!!!). What you might or might not consider it to be is irrelevant.

Is there a "head banging against the wall" emoticon anywhere? I feel I would really quite like to use it. I'll settle for

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:"Fat boy" isn't a racist insult, "Gypsy boy" is. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand...

But its not a race, Fatty's are everywhere and just as easily offended.

FFS, it's a 'racial group' in the eyes of the law (see Guns's links, they state it so quite clearly!!!). What you might or might not consider it to be is irrelevant.

Is there a "head banging against the wall" emoticon anywhere? I feel I would really quite like to use it. I'll settle for

So it doesn't bother you that fat people have feelings to!

I remember as a lad playing rugby for my school, and I was singled out for some abuse. I'm deaf and couldnt wear my hearing aids on the pitch, so there were a few funny moments. On one occasion  a lad on the other team started to mock me using what he thought was a funny appropriation of sign language, it was obvious that he didn't have a clue what he was doing, and nor did I cos I don't sign , have never learnt it. Seeing that I turned to my team mates and said very loudly that kid just said he shags chickens. So he was called all sorts of names after that. After the match his parents marched him up to me and my folks in the car park and made him apologise for it, which I gratefully received. We became best friends. Subsequently though, his school suspended him for two weeks for that, which I thought was unjust.
I'm not saying that the Marler incident should be buried and forgotten, but I couldn't help seeing a lot of parrallels between my schooldays incident and this one. Marler was being immature, that's not a crime in itself, however racial abuse is. I don't think he should be banned for it, but he does deserve at least a rap on the knuckles.

GunsGerms wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

No, it really isn't anything like it. But at least it helps you avoid thinking about why you consider gypsy boy to be more worthy of frothiness than Welsh boy.

You really are doing your best to justify racism. Such weak justification.

 

As someone who spent 12 years being abused due to my perceived race, I can assure you that I'm not trying to justify racism and understand the realities of it far better than you ever will. Now go away and throw your silly little accusations at someone else, the racism card won't work on me I'm afraid.

You don't know anything about me pal. You are showing your ignorance once again.

I know you don't have the intelligence to differentiate between someone asking a genuine question and someone justifying racism, that's more than enough for me thanks. And less of the 'pal' please, clearly not.

Never understand why people get so offended on other peoples behalf, Lee isn't bothered and why should he be, I expect Marler bought him a drink after the game and Lee's Brothers nicked his alloys of his range rover.

It's unlikely World Rugby will disagree on whether it breaks the rules anyway.

I hope the forthcoming hearing clears up exactly what was said after the Gypsy boy comments. There were enough players / officials there to hear it all.

bumble wrote:I hope the forthcoming hearing clears up exactly what was said after the Gypsy boy comments. There were enough players / officials there to hear it all.

Move on, there is a weekend of rugby to look forward too.

TightHEAD wrote:

Move on, there is a weekend of rugby to look forward too.

Plenty of other threads for you to contribute to then I'd guess.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:"Fat boy" isn't a racist insult, "Gypsy boy" is. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand...

But its not a race, Fatty's are everywhere and just as easily offended.

FFS, it's a 'racial group' in the eyes of the law (see Guns's links, they state it so quite clearly!!!). What you might or might not consider it to be is irrelevant.

Is there a "head banging against the wall" emoticon anywhere? I feel I would really quite like to use it. I'll settle for

You are correct re: racial group as defined by UK legislation, but what is not specified is whether the term "gypsy" is indeed offensive and the use thereof an automatic strict liability offence.

I personally think that there's some ambiguity there. Had a player used the N word with regard to Itoje I don't think there would be any dispute as to a ban being appropriate. Were I defending Marler that would certainly be my line of argument.

Mad for Chelsea

1) Might constitute "racism" according to the UK law but it doesn't make it a logical or reasonable law. Why should gypsies be given special protective status? It does matter that one form of abuse is acceptable and one isn't.

2) I do argue that the law is wrong to make abuse of one group unacceptable but others acceptable. It's "racist" to call someone Gypsy Boy but sheep shagger would have been fine....

3) Lee was offended, okay and no one in the entire world has ever been called anything hurtful? Gypsy Boy in my opinion is very low on the insult scale and in terms of crimes is low too. What Marler did was wrong but it's been turned into a media circus.

4) The incident should be concluded. It shouldn't be dragged on and on and turned into a media circus. It's something that should have been dealt with internally. I don't disagree with a punishment for Marler - I disagree with the way it's been handled. It's been made a much bigger deal than it should be.


Fat people aren't a race so of course it's acceptable to abuse people because of their weight.....

The problem in our society it's acceptable to abuse someone for being different and get away with it but only if you don't fit a certain category.

Bashing the rich and white - that's fine. The overweight - sure why not? Bash Christians? Sure. Call the Welsh sheep shaggers? Acceptable.

If you do the same on hot topics like disabilities,women,homosexuals, black people you have to be very careful indeed. Now I don't have anything against anyone who fits those categories but "banter" interpreted wrongly could get someone in hot water.

Now you might say fair enough - is abusing someone for being wealthy right? For being different?

It's still intolerance. Just one that is accepted.

bumble wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Move on, there is a weekend of rugby to look forward too.

Plenty of other threads for you to contribute to then I'd guess.

Let it go, let it go
Can't hold it back anymore
Let it go, let it go
Turn away and slam the door!

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:"Fat boy" isn't a racist insult, "Gypsy boy" is. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand...

But its not a race, Fatty's are everywhere and just as easily offended.

FFS, it's a 'racial group' in the eyes of the law (see Guns's links, they state it so quite clearly!!!). What you might or might not consider it to be is irrelevant.

Is there a "head banging against the wall" emoticon anywhere? I feel I would really quite like to use it. I'll settle for

You are correct re: racial group as defined by UK legislation, but what is not specified is whether the term "gypsy" is indeed offensive and the use thereof an automatic strict liability offence.

I personally think that there's some ambiguity there. Had a player used the N word with regard to Itoje I don't think there would be any dispute as to a ban being appropriate. Were I defending Marler that would certainly be my line of argument.

He was hardly saying it to be nice was he. Marler had his hand around Lee's throat at the time. Are you trying to suggest that Marler said it to be nice? Is it really ambiguous to you? I'm amazed.

Actually I'm not. Generally people that look for justification in matters such as this tend to do so only to justify to themselves their own racist tendencies. By the way I do believe that most people, including myself have either conscious or sub-conscious prejudices to varying degrees. That is why I think that is important to legislate against this sort of thing.

beshocked wrote:Mad for Chelsea

1) Might constitute "racism" according to the UK law but it doesn't make it a logical or reasonable law. Why should gypsies be given special protective status? It does matter that one form of abuse is acceptable and one isn't.

2) I do argue that the law is wrong to make abuse of one group unacceptable but others acceptable. It's "racist" to call someone Gypsy Boy but sheep shagger would have been fine....

3) Lee was offended, okay and no one in the entire world has ever been called anything hurtful? Gypsy Boy in my opinion is very low on the insult scale and in terms of crimes is low too. What Marler did was wrong but it's been turned into a media circus.

4) The incident should be concluded. It shouldn't be dragged on and on and turned into a media circus. It's something that should have been dealt with internally. I don't disagree with a punishment for Marler - I disagree with the way it's been handled. It's been made a much bigger deal than it should be.


Fat people aren't a race so of course it's acceptable to abuse people because of their weight.....

The problem in our society it's acceptable to abuse someone for being different and get away with it but only if you don't fit a certain category.

Bashing the rich and white - that's fine. The overweight - sure why not? Bash Christians? Sure. Call the Welsh sheep shaggers? Acceptable.

If you do the same on hot topics like disabilities,women,homosexuals, black people you have to be very careful indeed. Now I don't have anything against anyone who fits those categories but "banter" interpreted wrongly could get someone in hot water.

Now you might say fair enough - is abusing someone for being wealthy right? For being different?

It's still intolerance. Just one that is accepted.

The fact you still think calling Welsh people sheepshaggers is acceptable, despite having it explained to you circa 13 times that it is not, speaks volumes about both your mindset and your ability to comprehend.

World Rugby have done themselves no favours by looking into this non-story/incident.

All rather sad that some people can't let it go.........