Marler to Face World Rugby Hearing

First topic message reminder :

From BBC

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

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

That's not how the law works at all, it does differentiate between being an ethnic majority or an ethnic minority, it is illegal to make derogatory comments to someone because they are English or Welsh just like it is they are a Gypsy or Pakistani.

Absolutely. And if anyone else is found guilty of doing so, then it shouldn't just be Marler that gets a long ban.

The alleged comment to Marler would also be considered racist. People have been dragged to court for less.

Some very strange views on what is racism on this thread!

Munchkin wrote:The alleged comment to Marler would also be considered racist. People have been dragged to court for less.

Can you name one?

Seagultaf wrote:Some very strange views on what is racism on this thread!

Even stranger double standards!

Munchkin wrote:The alleged comment to Marler would also be considered racist. People have been dragged to court for less.

Go on - show us one. Calling someone "english" under these circumstances is not racist under any rational definition of racist. Its a fairly nasty insult taken as a whole phrase but it simply is not racist - there is no equivalence.

Seagultaf wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The alleged comment to Marler would also be considered racist. People have been dragged to court for less.

Can you name one?

Elen Humphreys Racism

TJ wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The alleged comment to Marler would also be considered racist. People have been dragged to court for less.

Go on - show us one.  Calling someone "english" under these circumstances is not racist under any rational definition of racist.  Its a fairly nasty insult taken as a whole phrase but it simply is not racist - there is no equivalence.

Just did.......

TJ wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The alleged comment to Marler would also be considered racist. People have been dragged to court for less.

Go on - show us one.  Calling someone "english" under these circumstances is not racist under any rational definition of racist.  Its a fairly nasty insult taken as a whole phrase but it simply is not racist - there is no equivalence.

UN definition

... any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin

(I've quoted your own post)

bumble wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

That's not how the law works at all, it does differentiate between being an ethnic majority or an ethnic minority, it is illegal to make derogatory comments to someone because they are English or Welsh just like it is they are a Gypsy or Pakistani.

Absolutely. And if anyone else is found guilty of doing so, then it shouldn't just be Marler that gets a long ban.

Nonsense. Just utter nonsense. Its the context that makes it racist or not. And remeber - I am English living in Scotland - I understand anti english racism being on the receiving end of it years ago - and this statement whilst and unpleasant insult is not racist. Context is the key which many of you seem to be unable to understand

TJ wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The alleged comment to Marler would also be considered racist. People have been dragged to court for less.

Go on - show us one.  Calling someone "english" under these circumstances is not racist under any rational definition of racist.  Its a fairly nasty insult taken as a whole phrase but it simply is not racist - there is no equivalence.

The use of a stereotype and the subsequent use of c*** at the end makes it 100% a racist slur, if calling a Gypsy a Gypsy is racism then that is.

Duty281 wrote:

TJ wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The alleged comment to Marler would also be considered racist. People have been dragged to court for less.

Go on - show us one.  Calling someone "english" under these circumstances is not racist under any rational definition of racist.  Its a fairly nasty insult taken as a whole phrase but it simply is not racist - there is no equivalence.

UN definition

... any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin

(I've quoted your own post)

Yes that is a part of the definition - now explain how calling someone English meets that criteria using the whole definition - lets see how you can twist it to prove a non racist comment is racist. That phrase does not mean what you seem to think it means.

TJ wrote:

bumble wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

That's not how the law works at all, it does differentiate between being an ethnic majority or an ethnic minority, it is illegal to make derogatory comments to someone because they are English or Welsh just like it is they are a Gypsy or Pakistani.

Absolutely. And if anyone else is found guilty of doing so, then it shouldn't just be Marler that gets a long ban.

Nonsense.  Just utter nonsense.  Its the context that makes it racist or not.  And remeber - I am English living in Scotland - I understand anti english racism being on the receiving end of it years ago - and this statement whilst and unpleasant insult is not racist.  Context is the key which many of you seem to be unable to understand

That comment was more vulgar than the one in the link I provided. The context is exactly the same as the context in which Lee was mocked, if true.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TJ wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The alleged comment to Marler would also be considered racist. People have been dragged to court for less.

Go on - show us one.  Calling someone "english" under these circumstances is not racist under any rational definition of racist.  Its a fairly nasty insult taken as a whole phrase but it simply is not racist - there is no equivalence.

The use of a stereotype and the subsequent use of c*** at the end makes it 100% a racist slur, if calling a Gypsy a Gypsy is racism then that is.

Nope - try harder. and remember - Lee is not a gypsy. simple sterotyping is not racist. Using a sterotype in a pejorative way is. Again - context is the key

Munchkin wrote:

TJ wrote:

bumble wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

That's not how the law works at all, it does differentiate between being an ethnic majority or an ethnic minority, it is illegal to make derogatory comments to someone because they are English or Welsh just like it is they are a Gypsy or Pakistani.

Absolutely. And if anyone else is found guilty of doing so, then it shouldn't just be Marler that gets a long ban.

Nonsense.  Just utter nonsense.  Its the context that makes it racist or not.  And remeber - I am English living in Scotland - I understand anti english racism being on the receiving end of it years ago - and this statement whilst and unpleasant insult is not racist.  Context is the key which many of you seem to be unable to understand

That comment was more vulgar than the one in the link I provided. The context is exactly the same as the context in which Lee was mocked.

No it is not. Marler is English, Lee is not a gypsy. the english are not a persecuted minority.

TJ, you are simply too stupid to be debating something like this, being called English is not racist, being called a Gypsy is not racist but use either of those words in conjunction with a derogatory term and it is in fact racism. You seem to be concentrating on one word and ignoring the two that are actually the key.

TJ wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

TJ wrote:

bumble wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

That's not how the law works at all, it does differentiate between being an ethnic majority or an ethnic minority, it is illegal to make derogatory comments to someone because they are English or Welsh just like it is they are a Gypsy or Pakistani.

Absolutely. And if anyone else is found guilty of doing so, then it shouldn't just be Marler that gets a long ban.

Nonsense.  Just utter nonsense.  Its the context that makes it racist or not.  And remeber - I am English living in Scotland - I understand anti english racism being on the receiving end of it years ago - and this statement whilst and unpleasant insult is not racist.  Context is the key which many of you seem to be unable to understand

That comment was more vulgar than the one in the link I provided. The context is exactly the same as the context in which Lee was mocked.

No it is not.  Marler is English, Lee is not a gypsy.  the english are not a persecuted minority.

So it's ok, or less offensive, to racially abuse someone if they happen to be part of the majority?

When is the majority not the majority? Think about it. The lady who was racially abused in the link I provided was English (the majority), but she was racially abused while in Wales .....

So if Gypsies became a majority in society, they could no longer be victims of 'racism'?

That's an interesting one, to say the least.

TJ wrote:

bumble wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

That's not how the law works at all, it does differentiate between being an ethnic majority or an ethnic minority, it is illegal to make derogatory comments to someone because they are English or Welsh just like it is they are a Gypsy or Pakistani.

Absolutely. And if anyone else is found guilty of doing so, then it shouldn't just be Marler that gets a long ban.

Nonsense.  Just utter nonsense.  Its the context that makes it racist or not.  And remeber - I am English living in Scotland - I understand anti english racism being on the receiving end of it years ago - and this statement whilst and unpleasant insult is not racist.  Context is the key which many of you seem to be unable to understand

It's a derogatorry, inflamatory, abusive statement based on someone's ethnicity / background. Both comments should see bans.

But only one will, because I'm guessing Connor O'Shea has absolutely no evidence that anyone said such a thing and is just deflecting the heat from his boy.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:TJ, you are simply too stupid to be debating something like this, being called English is not racist, being called a Gypsy is not racist but use either of those words in conjunction with a derogatory term and it is in fact racism. You seem to be concentrating on one word and ignoring the two that are actually the key.

Wrong again - its not me who is stupid here. Remeber I am English. I live in Scotland. I understand what anti english racism is. This is not it.

You on the other hand in your desparation to clear your man are twisting wortds and definitions in weird ways.

The racial element here is the word gypsy used as an insult. Simple as that. Using English as an insult is not racist IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES as its not derogatory to be called english.

I am rather surprised and saddened that in 2016 people seem incapable of understanding what is racist and what is not.

It is also not derogatory to call somebody a Gypsy, despite your previous incorrect assertion that Lee is not a Gypsy when in fact he is, all Irish Travellers are Gypsies but being such a braniac you'd know that wouldn't you TJ.

As I and various others have already said, the insult was not the use of the word English but the words used either side of it, something you seem to be conveniently ignoring time and time again.

Racism is based on either race or ethnicity, Marler was apparently insulted based on his nationality which also doubles up as his ethnicity, it is therefore racism, racism is not confined to just ethnic minorities but all ethnicities.

Yes anti english racism does exist. I know as an englishman with a posh english acent and name living and growing up in scotland. The words eiother side do not make any differnce apart from making it into an insult

Lee is not a Gypsy. He is of Irish traveller descent. Irish travellers are not Gypsies . Gypsies are a completely different people. Different genetically, different socially, different culturally

But tden - somone who defends racists, who does not understand what racism is would find it hard to understand this obvious point.

You can look up definitions if you like but here are a couple
.Gypsy a member of a travelling people with dark skin and hair, traditionally living by itinerant trade and fortune telling. Gypsies speak a language (Romany) that is related to Hindi and are believed to have originated in South Asia

There is a lack of understanding about the distinction between (mainly Irish) Travellers, and Roma, each with a different ethnicity and migration history between them. GRT groups have been part of British society and culture for over 500 years, with the first authenticated records of Gypsy presence going back to 1505 in Scotland and 1514 in England. Many of the current Irish Travellers came over from Ireland in the 19th century and after Second World War to work on building and motorway projects. Welsh Gypsies are known as Kale and have been present in the UK since the 16th century, as have Scottish and English Roma, earliest records referring to them as “the Egyptians.” The Roma have a different ethnicity to Travellers, which has recently been traced linguistically and genetically to North India a thousand years ago (though there is still contention about this). The most recent wave of Roma immigration came from post-Communist Eastern Europe in the 1990s and after 2004, when some countries joined the European Union.

England's Joe Marler will face a World Rugby misconduct hearing on 5 April for calling Wales' Samson Lee a "Gypsy boy".

Pinched this from Wiki:

Use in English law
Gipsy has several developing and overlapping meanings under English Law. Under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, gipsies are defined as "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such."[41] This definition includes such groups as New Age Travellers, as well as Irish Travellers and Romany.[42][43]

Gipsies of Romany origins have been a recognised ethnic group for the purposes of Race Relations Act 1976 since Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton 1989 and Irish Travellers in England and Wales since O'Leary v Allied Domecq 2000 (having already gained recognition in Northern Ireland in 1997

I have to point out one thing to you and it highlights your lack of understanding, being an Irish Traveller or Romani gypsy has nothing to do with genetics, you can use frantically search google all you want but it isn't helping your cause.

A Gypsy is a term used for any person of nomadic origin which encompasses both Irish Travellers and the Romani people, the two groups are of different heritage but both refer to themselves as Gypsies. You can use Tyson Fury as an example if you want, he is of Irish Traveller stock but he and all his family refer to themselves as Gypsies because of their lifestyle, his self styled nickname is the 'Gypsy King'. The word Gypsy no longer refers to a specific ethnicity of people.

Further to one of my previous comments, if one of the Welsh players had been caught on camera, picked up on the ref mic, and broadcast to the whole world saying 'you posh English c*nt' then yes I'd expect a similar hearing and would expect a ban. Nothing to do with racism. As I said about the Marler incident it's more to do with bringing the game into disrepute, being poor role models, the stage on which this behaviour is displayed, etc., etc.

OMG

You really do not get it do you. BTW - resorting to insulting me shows the poverty of your argument.

There is no doubt at all that Irish travellers are not Gypsys in the definition of the word. A gypsy is a Roma, they are genetically different from Irish travellers. They use a differnt language, they are different culturally.

Go on - you really need to educate yorself on two differnt things here which you fail to understand. However in your need to defend racists and to find equivlence between and insult and a racist insult you are being willfully blind

And please - stop insulting me. I have been fighting racism since the 70s, I have been on the wrong end of anti english racism, I have an understanding of the issues that you seem unable to grasp.

I can only assume you're on the wind up, you seem to be ignoring the definitions under UK law in favour of something you've googled and read on Wikipedia, time to educate yourself on these matters I think. The definition of the word under UK law includes both the Romani people (note the absence of the word Gypsy) and Irish Travellers, it is there in black and white for you to read. Just because the Romani are Gyspies does not mean they are the only people who are.

I'd also quite like to see you test out your little theory, go up to an Irish Traveller call them a Gypsy then go up to a Roma and call them a Gypsy, one of them won't like your use of the word whilst the other sees it as a badge of honour.

Griff wrote:Further to one of my previous comments, if one of the Welsh players had been caught on camera, picked up on the ref mic, and broadcast to the whole world saying 'you posh English c*nt' then yes I'd expect a similar hearing and would expect a ban. Nothing to do with racism. As I said about the Marler incident it's more to do with bringing the game into disrepute, being poor role models, the stage on which this behaviour is displayed, etc., etc.

This is key, whether MArler was racist or not matters little, partly due to the ambiguity, however the inapprpriate nature of what was said and the context and environment that was said means he deserves a small ban.

Why is what defines 'Gypsy' still being debated?

Although I had thought 'Gypsy' mainly referred to the Roma, the term applies to both the Roma and the Traveller. At least according to UK law.

When Marler used the word 'Gypsy', he was using it in the pejorative. Marler intended it as an insult. He admits as much, apparently, and so his comment was racist. That's not to say Marler is racist. I doubt that very much. Sometimes things are said that really aren't a true reflection on who we are.

It's amazing that certain people have been saying for 2 weeks that 'gypsy boy' isn't banter but a slur about someone's heritage, yet (now the shoe's on the other foot) they are now saying 'posh English ****' isn't a slur on someone's heritage and is banter (unless they are saying it's a compliment?). The hypocrisy is laughable. This could come back to bite the WRU on the a***.

Everyone can witter on as much as they like, Marler will face a hearing on the 5th where, according to his club coach, he will plead guilty to the charged of "misconduct and/or a breach of the code of conduct".

He will probably get a short ban and only get a longer one if they change the charge to include racism.

LondonTiger wrote:Everyone can witter on as much as they like, Marler will face a hearing on the 5th where, according to his club coach, he will plead guilty to the charged of "misconduct and/or a breach of the code of conduct".

He will probably get a short ban and only get a longer one if they change the charge to include racism.

I fear for MArler, with the rumours of further comments, and the exra video of him SEEMINGLY saying one of those comments, the situation of the poor handling from the RFU, and 6N rugby hearing board, plus the petty comments from Gatland and Jones, World rugby may just make an example of him. I sincerely hope not!

LondonTiger wrote:Everyone can witter on as much as they like, Marler will face a hearing on the 5th where, according to his club coach, he will plead guilty to the charged of "misconduct and/or a breach of the code of conduct".

He will probably get a short ban and only get a longer one if they change the charge to include racism.

Why would he get a ban if they don't think his comment was racist?

Fanster wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Everyone can witter on as much as they like, Marler will face a hearing on the 5th where, according to his club coach, he will plead guilty to the charged of "misconduct and/or a breach of the code of conduct".

He will probably get a short ban and only get a longer one if they change the charge to include racism.

I fear for MArler, with the rumours of further comments, and the exra video of him SEEMINGLY saying one of those comments, the situation of the poor handling from the RFU, and 6N rugby hearing board, plus the petty comments from Gatland and Jones, World rugby may just make an example of him. I sincerely hope not!

I fear you might well be right. He should have been cited and given a citing commissioners warning which is allthi really merits and then it would all have been over

TJ wrote:

Fanster wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Everyone can witter on as much as they like, Marler will face a hearing on the 5th where, according to his club coach, he will plead guilty to the charged of "misconduct and/or a breach of the code of conduct".

He will probably get a short ban and only get a longer one if they change the charge to include racism.

I fear for MArler, with the rumours of further comments, and the exra video of him SEEMINGLY saying one of those comments, the situation of the poor handling from the RFU, and 6N rugby hearing board, plus the petty comments from Gatland and Jones, World rugby may just make an example of him. I sincerely hope not!

I fear you might well be right.  He should have been cited and given a citing commissioners warning which is allthi really merits and then it would all have been over

Thats wouldve been so easy and sensible, as little as the RFU leaving him out for France would probably have sufficed! Failing that 2 weeks from the 6N would've ended the issue, but now he may be punished for the systemic failure!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I can only assume you're on the wind up, you seem to be ignoring the definitions under UK law in favour of something you've googled and read on Wikipedia, time to educate yourself on these matters I think. The definition of the word under UK law includes both the Romani people (note the absence of the word Gypsy) and Irish Travellers, it is there in black and white for you to read. Just because the Romani are Gyspies does not mean they are the only people who are.

I'd also quite like to see you test out your little theory, go up to an Irish Traveller call them a Gypsy then go up to a Roma and call them a Gypsy, one of them won't like your use of the word whilst the other sees it as a badge of honour.

Well you are simply wrong on that - and in UK law the two groups - the gypsy / roma and the irish traveller are treated as separate which indeed they are. . Its not me who needs to educate myself. You don't understand what a gypsy is, you don't understand what racism is.

No point in any further debate with somone who insists despite all the facts that their erroneous conclusions are correct when its obvious they are wrong.

TJ wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I can only assume you're on the wind up, you seem to be ignoring the definitions under UK law in favour of something you've googled and read on Wikipedia, time to educate yourself on these matters I think. The definition of the word under UK law includes both the Romani people (note the absence of the word Gypsy) and Irish Travellers, it is there in black and white for you to read. Just because the Romani are Gyspies does not mean they are the only people who are.

I'd also quite like to see you test out your little theory, go up to an Irish Traveller call them a Gypsy then go up to a Roma and call them a Gypsy, one of them won't like your use of the word whilst the other sees it as a badge of honour.

Well you are simply wrong on that - and in UK law the two groups - the gypsy / roma and the irish traveller are treated as separate  which indeed they are. .  Its not me who needs to educate myself.  You don't understand what a gypsy is, you don't understand what racism is.

No point in any further debate with somone who insists despite all the facts that their erroneous conclusions are correct when its obvious they are wrong.

I don't think that's true.

Under UK law 'Gypsy' includes the New Age Traveller, the Roma and the Irish Traveller.

You have at least proven my suspicions that you are on the wind up, either that or your just plain dumb.

The Roma and the Irish Travellers are different ethnicities but are both referred to under UK law as Gypsies, I can only assume you are not reading any of the links or passages that confirm that. Your definition of racism makes no sense whatsoever, an ethnic majority can be the victims of racism after all it was you yourself who mentioned the Apartheid.

No it does not. I posted the CPS guidence on this on another thread. Gypsy and Roma are synonyms, Irish travellers are a different protected group. New age travellers are not a protected group.

I do not wan't to get involved in this racists argument. Was it a racis comment was it not.

The question i would like to ask any one in the know is. Just what punishment they, (  World Rugby ) can impose on MARLER?

And is this going in a dangerous way, because it does seem that if a white man call a coloured man a ( Name ) the white man is called a racist. However i have noticed that if a coloured  man calls a white man a ( Name ) it seems to be excepted.

So whatever happens to Marler. it should happen to any one else who calls any one, any thing.

I am all for Equal rights and all. But that is the problem the ( EQUAL ) bit.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You have at least proven my suspicions that you are on the wind up, either that or your just plain dumb.

The Roma and the Irish Travellers are different ethnicities but are both referred to under UK law as Gypsies, I can only assume you are not reading any of the links or passages that confirm that. Your definition of racism makes no sense whatsoever, an ethnic majority can be the victims of racism after all it was you yourself who mentioned the Apartheid.

Ah - you now accept that Roma and Irish travellers are not the same ethnicity. Well done. Baby steps and all that. A few posts ago you were claiming they were. So as Gypsy and Roma are synonyms how can Irish travellers be gypsies?

I use the widely accepted definition of racism

enough - time you invoked hatterslys law

majesticimperialman wrote:I do not wan't to get involved in this racists argument. Was it a racis comment was it not.

The question i would like to ask any one in the know is. Just what punishment they, (  World Rugby  ) can impose on MARLER?

And is this going in a dangerous way, because it does seem that if a white man call a coloured man a ( Name ) the white man is called a racist. However i have noticed that if a coloured  man calls a white man a ( Name ) it seems to be excepted.

So whatever happens to Marler. it should happen to any one else who calls any one, any thing.

I am all for Equal rights and all. But that is the problem the ( EQUAL ) bit.

Thats a very measured response, the answer is I don't think anyone knows exactly what probably will, or even what potentially could happen.

I think we're all hoping for a very minor 2 weeks, mostly for the ishandling of the event by most, however I fear he may be made an example of.

TJ wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You have at least proven my suspicions that you are on the wind up, either that or your just plain dumb.

The Roma and the Irish Travellers are different ethnicities but are both referred to under UK law as Gypsies, I can only assume you are not reading any of the links or passages that confirm that. Your definition of racism makes no sense whatsoever, an ethnic majority can be the victims of racism after all it was you yourself who mentioned the Apartheid.

Ah - you now accept that Roma and Irish travellers are not the same ethnicity.  Well done.  Baby steps and all that.  A few posts ago you were claiming they were. So as Gypsy and Roma are synonyms how can Irish travellers be gypsies?

I use the widely accepted definition of racism

enough - time you invoked hatterslys law

I'd like you to point out where I said that the Roma and Irish Travellers are the same ethnicity, I said correctly that both are referred to as Gypsies due to their nomadic lifestyle. Gypsy and Roma are not synonyms at all, I can guarantee you know nobody from either heritage.

TJ wrote:No it does not.  I posted the CPS guidence on this on another thread.  Gypsy and Roma are synonyms, Irish travellers are a different protected group.  New age travellers are not a protected group.

You would really need to post your link here, TJ.

Ok, this is what I get:



Use in English Law

Gipsy has several developing and overlapping meanings under English Law. Under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, 'gipsies' are defined as "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen, or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such."[41] This definition includes such groups as New Age Travellers, as well as Irish Travellers and Romany.[42] [43]

Gipsies of Romany origins have been a recognised ethnic group for the purposes of Race Relations Act 1976 since Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton 1989 and Irish Travellers in England and Wales since O'Leary v Allied Domecq 2000 (having already gained recognition in Northern Ireland in 1997).[44]

PublicLawProject

I think the example posted by Munchkin clearly illustrates the view of the courts on whether calling someone an English (insert insult here) is considered racist - unless they are wrong too?

Fanster wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I do not wan't to get involved in this racists argument. Was it a racis comment was it not.

The question i would like to ask any one in the know is. Just what punishment they, (  World Rugby  ) can impose on MARLER?

And is this going in a dangerous way, because it does seem that if a white man call a coloured man a ( Name ) the white man is called a racist. However i have noticed that if a coloured  man calls a white man a ( Name ) it seems to be excepted.

So whatever happens to Marler. it should happen to any one else who calls any one, any thing.

I am all for Equal rights and all. But that is the problem the ( EQUAL ) bit.

Thats a very measured response, the answer is I don't think anyone knows exactly what probably will, or even what potentially could happen.

I think we're all hoping for a very minor 2 weeks, mostly for the ishandling of the event by most, however I fear he may be made an example of.

Well i have just read on the bbc sport site that Marler will face World Rugby on the 5th of April.

I guess now a date is set they ( World Rugby ) will have too justify over riding the 6ns board.

Like you Fansta i think they will come down on him hard.

pheonix wrote:It's amazing that certain people have been saying for 2 weeks that 'gypsy boy' isn't banter but a slur about someone's heritage, yet (now the shoe's on the other foot) they are now saying 'posh English ****' isn't a slur on someone's heritage and is banter (unless they are saying it's a compliment?). The hypocrisy is laughable. This could come back to bite the WRU on the a***.

Oh dear.

majesticimperialman wrote:I do not wan't to get involved in this racists argument. Was it a racis comment was it not.

The question i would like to ask any one in the know is. Just what punishment they, (  World Rugby  ) can impose on MARLER?

And is this going in a dangerous way, because it does seem that if a white man call a coloured man a ( Name ) the white man is called a racist. However i have noticed that if a coloured  man calls a white man a ( Name ) it seems to be excepted.

So whatever happens to Marler. it should happen to any one else who calls any one, any thing.

I am all for Equal rights and all. But that is the problem the ( EQUAL ) bit.

You are right, and if the Welsh boys called an English boy something and it was caught on camera then yes it should be dealt with in a similar way.

Just to add though that society and accepted conventions don't always follow logic, and I'm not sure whether that is a good or bad thing. For example, if a player had called Charteris lanky then we'd all laugh. If Lee was called ginger then I doubt anything would happen. If disabilities had been mentioned then players would have crossed an imaginary cultural boundary and sanction would probably result. Similarly 'Welsh' and 'English', 'Taff', 'jock', 'paddy' are not acknowledged or recognised as insults, even if some might find them offensive, but 'black', the 'p' or 'n' words, 'gypo', 'ch*nk', etc are. 'Tis the way of the world. Not sure who makes the rules. But sometimes we just have to accept that we do not have equality or fairness in those culturally accepted/not accepted offensive 'things'.

majesticimperialman wrote:

Fanster wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I do not wan't to get involved in this racists argument. Was it a racis comment was it not.

The question i would like to ask any one in the know is. Just what punishment they, (  World Rugby  ) can impose on MARLER?

And is this going in a dangerous way, because it does seem that if a white man call a coloured man a ( Name ) the white man is called a racist. However i have noticed that if a coloured  man calls a white man a ( Name ) it seems to be excepted.

So whatever happens to Marler. it should happen to any one else who calls any one, any thing.

I am all for Equal rights and all. But that is the problem the ( EQUAL ) bit.

Thats a very measured response, the answer is I don't think anyone knows exactly what probably will, or even what potentially could happen.

I think we're all hoping for a very minor 2 weeks, mostly for the ishandling of the event by most, however I fear he may be made an example of.

Well i have just read on the bbc sport site that Marler will face World Rugby on the 5th of April.

I guess now a date is set they ( World Rugby ) will have too justify over riding the 6ns board.

Like you Fansta i think they will come down on him hard.

I suspect they won't have a problem justifying overriding 6N, I really hope we are wrong on this occasion though, as you say it would set a dangerous precident!