Marler to Face World Rugby Hearing

First topic message reminder :

From BBC

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

PenfroPete wrote:

Cyril wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:On the other side, if we applied our current approach to the past, Phil Bennett would have done for 'inciting racial hatred'

The first thing I thought of when the Marler incident came to light was this. It's ok though, Bennett's speech was 'rousing' and 'from the heart' so no harm done.

Think you'll find he hadn't prepared anything Cyril - it was all in the heat of the moment

bumble wrote:

quinsforever wrote:samson lee doesnt feel racially abused. he said so.

Why are people STILL saying this? Whether he does or not has absolutely no bearing.

HOW COME? Surely this is between Samson Lee and Joe Marler.

If Samson Lee ( Believes) Joe Marler did not mean too offend him. and what was said was said as ( Banter ).

THEN WHY IS THIS GOING ON? FFS.

majesticimperialman wrote:

bumble wrote:

quinsforever wrote:samson lee doesnt feel racially abused. he said so.

Why are people STILL saying this? Whether he does or not has absolutely no bearing.

HOW COME? Surely this is between Samson Lee and Joe Marler.

If Samson Lee ( Believes) Joe Marler did not mean too offend him. and what was said was said as ( Banter ).

THEN WHY IS THIS GOING ON? FFS.

Because under your rationale ; anybody can say anything, and as long as the person it was said to doesn't take offence, then that's the end of the matter. Even if millions of people are offended who also heard it via youtube, a newspaper, the radio or a referee's microphone.

THINK majesticimperialman

(Good) GRIEF.

[quote="majesticimperialman"][quote="bumble"][quote="quinsforever"]samson lee doesnt feel racially abused. he said so.

[/quote]


Why are people STILL saying this? Whether he does or not has absolutely no bearing.[/quote]


HOW COME? Surely this is between Samson Lee and Joe Marler.

If Samson Lee ( Believes) Joe Marler did not mean too offend him. and what was said was said as ( Banter ).

THEN WHY IS THIS GOING ON? FFS.

[/quote]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


It is not between Lee and Marler it is offensive to many.  It is also against the Laws of the game.  It was certainly not banter.

PS Marler is a role model and should behave like one

Allty wrote:PS Marler is a role model and should behave like one

He was. Apparently that is how posh english ****'s behave...

Allty wrote:PS Marler is a role model and should behave like one

Yes, he is, and he shouldn't have said what he said. But to pretend - as most people on this thread seem to want to - that Marler is the only guilty party as opposed to just the only party caught on mic is either very naive or very disingenuous.

Props have been trying to wind each other up since time immemorial and I suspect that if we had a list of every insult opposing front rows have thrown at each other over time, Marler's would rank pretty low on the list. Especially since - if COS is correct - it was a response to a considerably stronger insult, albeit one with a more tenuous racial element.

Marler was the one caught, and Marler should be the one punished - though if World Rugby is consistent he should not be the only one, and calls for a 20 week ban are ridiculous in a match where another player got 8 weeks for gouging.

But there's a wider issue that if we are actually concerned about keeping racism out of rugby, we need to decide where to draw the line. Do we actually want front rows to clean up their act? Or are we happy with a stance of "just don't get caught"?

Or are we actually not debating this at all and just trying to score points off each other?

Poorfour wrote:

Allty wrote:PS Marler is a role model and should behave like one

Yes, he is, and he shouldn't have said what he said. But to pretend - as most people on this thread seem to want to - that Marler is the only guilty party as opposed to just the only party caught on mic is either very naive or very disingenuous.

Props have been trying to wind each other up since time immemorial and I suspect that if we had a list of every insult opposing front rows have thrown at each other over time, Marler's would rank pretty low on the list. Especially since - if COS is correct - it was a response to a considerably stronger insult, albeit one with a more tenuous racial element.

Marler was the one caught, and Marler should be the one punished - though if World Rugby is consistent he should not be the only one, and calls for a 20 week ban are ridiculous in a match where another player got 8 weeks for gouging.

But there's a wider issue that if we are actually concerned about keeping racism out of rugby, we need to decide where to draw the line. Do we actually want front rows to clean up their act? Or are we happy with a stance of "just don't get caught"?

Or are we actually not debating this at all and just trying to score points off each other?

It might be naïve to suggest he is the only guilty party but its hardly worth discussing what may or may not have been said if there is no proof that anything else was said.

There is no need for front rows to clean up their act but equally racism has no place on or off the field. There are ways to rile up your opponent without marginalising them because of their background.

majesticimperialman wrote:

bumble wrote:

quinsforever wrote:samson lee doesnt feel racially abused. he said so.

Why are people STILL saying this? Whether he does or not has absolutely no bearing.

HOW COME? Surely this is between Samson Lee and Joe Marler.

If Samson Lee ( Believes) Joe Marler did not mean too offend him. and what was said was said as ( Banter ).

THEN WHY IS THIS GOING ON? FFS.

Because he said it live on TV and it was broadcast to the ears of ALL the other people who are entitled to be offended, thus making it NOT just between Lee and Marler. Hence, private conversations can contain language that might be ok between the two people involved and might not invoke sanction but live broadcasts such as films, TV programmes and live sport need to tone down the language to avoid offence, or suffer the consequences when they overstep the line.

GunsGerms wrote:
It might be naïve to suggest he is the only guilty party but its hardly worth discussing what may or may not have been said if there is no proof that anything else was said.

There is no need for front rows to clean up their act but equally racism has no place on or off the field. There are ways to rile up your opponent without marginalising them because of their background.
 

So, essentially what you're saying is "no-one should say racist things but since it didn't happen if you didn't get caught, everyone else can carry on".

Classy.

Has anyone got a link to the interview where it is suggested that members of the Welsh squad have, in the name of banter, joked with Lee about his gypsy heritage?

I'd be interested to see the evidence.

Poorfour wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:
It might be naïve to suggest he is the only guilty party but its hardly worth discussing what may or may not have been said if there is no proof that anything else was said.

There is no need for front rows to clean up their act but equally racism has no place on or off the field. There are ways to rile up your opponent without marginalising them because of their background.
 

So, essentially what you're saying is "no-one should say racist things but since it didn't happen if you didn't get caught, everyone else can carry on".

Classy.

Guns is right. If a Welsh player did in fact say what he is alleged to have said, then that is also racist. However, there is no evidence, that we are aware of, but word of mouth. That word of mouth is very likely to come from Marler himself. Hardly credible. Even if there is solid evidence that a Welsh player did make the remark, two wrongs don't make a right. Both would be guilty, and both deserving of whatever punishment deemed appropriate.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Has anyone got a link to the interview where it is suggested that members of the Welsh squad have, in the name of banter, joked with Lee about his gypsy heritage?

I'd be interested to see the evidence.

Just this:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-prop-rob-evans-jokes-11005553

Acting like a trash journalist I now get selective with the quotes:

"I remember playing against him when I was like 11, all the boys were talking about Samson Lee, this gypsy."

“The only thing I remember really from the game was the smell. He smells a bit better now!”

Storm in a teacup really. (Though surely most believe that the Marler comments and "crime" are at risk of being blown completely out of proportion. Guilty as charged and small ban sure - but demands for bans between 20 and 52 weeks are <self deleted>)

Munchkin wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:
It might be naïve to suggest he is the only guilty party but its hardly worth discussing what may or may not have been said if there is no proof that anything else was said.

There is no need for front rows to clean up their act but equally racism has no place on or off the field. There are ways to rile up your opponent without marginalising them because of their background.
 

So, essentially what you're saying is "no-one should say racist things but since it didn't happen if you didn't get caught, everyone else can carry on".

Classy.

Guns is right. If a Welsh player did in fact say what he is alleged to have said, then that is also racist. However, there is no evidence, that we are aware of, but word of mouth. That word of mouth is very likely to come from Marler himself. Hardly credible. Even if there is solid evidence that a Welsh player did make the remark, two wrongs don't make a right. Both would be guilty, and both deserving of whatever punishment deemed appropriate.

And P4 is not disagreeing with the bold bit. It is guns apparent sentiment that props can continue baiting each other just so long as they do not get caught he is objecting to.

RiscaGame wrote:

PenfroPete wrote:

Cyril wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:On the other side, if we applied our current approach to the past, Phil Bennett would have done for 'inciting racial hatred'

The first thing I thought of when the Marler incident came to light was this. It's ok though, Bennett's speech was 'rousing' and 'from the heart' so no harm done.

Think you'll find he hadn't prepared anything Cyril - it was all in the heat of the moment

Heh, fair play, those poetic Welsh and their lyrical improvisations

Interesting London Tiger. I wonder what the spokesperson for the Traveller community will have to say about those comments, and whether it will be investigated further as part of this matter.

As I've said before, I don't think the term "gypsy" is particularly straightforward, or its usage necessarily always intended to cause offence (as with the Rob Evans interview).

LondonTiger wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:
It might be naïve to suggest he is the only guilty party but its hardly worth discussing what may or may not have been said if there is no proof that anything else was said.

There is no need for front rows to clean up their act but equally racism has no place on or off the field. There are ways to rile up your opponent without marginalising them because of their background.
 

So, essentially what you're saying is "no-one should say racist things but since it didn't happen if you didn't get caught, everyone else can carry on".

Classy.

Guns is right. If a Welsh player did in fact say what he is alleged to have said, then that is also racist. However, there is no evidence, that we are aware of, but word of mouth. That word of mouth is very likely to come from Marler himself. Hardly credible. Even if there is solid evidence that a Welsh player did make the remark, two wrongs don't make a right. Both would be guilty, and both deserving of whatever punishment deemed appropriate.

And P4 is not disagreeing with the bold bit. It is guns apparent sentiment that props can continue baiting each other just so long as they do not get caught he is objecting to.

I don't think many object to players trying to wind each other up (it's long been a part of the game), but how they wind each other up. There's a line that shouldn't be crossed, and racist taunts is crossing that line.
The Marler incident has shown that players have to be more careful in what they say and, as role models, should be held accountable.

I agree they should be held accountable - but it is the "only if they are caught" attitude that reeks of hypocrisy.

LondonTiger wrote:I agree they should be held accountable - but it is the "only if they are caught" attitude that reeks of hypocrisy.

But Guns said that there was no place for racism on the field. A bit of banter is expected, but racist comments need to be dealt with. Marler knew he had crossed the line, otherwise he wouldn't have apologised. I'm glad he did. I don't believe he is a racist, but the comment still needs to be dealt with appropriately.

Munchkin wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I agree they should be held accountable - but it is the "only if they are caught" attitude that reeks of hypocrisy.

But Guns said that there was no place for racism on the field. A bit of banter is expected, but racist comments need to be dealt with. Marler knew he had crossed the line, otherwise he wouldn't have apologised. I'm glad he did. I don't believe he is a racist, but the comment still needs to be dealt with appropriately.

But he dismissed the possibility that Marler had received (arguably) racist comments of his own as not needing to be addressed because we have no evidence and then went on to make a general statement that props don't need to clean up their act. Marler knew he'd crossed the line and apologised - apparently without even knowing that it had been caught on tv.

How many props - including whoever reportedly "bantered" with Marler - have crossed the line without apologising?

I'm fine with waiting for evidence on the "banter" against Marler, thought I think in the context of the furore this has kicked up it's a bit childish to refuse even to consider it. If Marler's statement is corroborated, it's both partial mitigation and an equivalent offence in its own right.

The bigger issue is with pretending that Marler is the sole bad apple just because no-one else has been caught on a televised mic yet. There is undoubtedly banter, and equally undoubtedly some of it crosses the line. If anything worthwhile is going to come out of this unedifying mess, rugby needs to look at that.

Marler clearly gets involved on his own accord in the video. There doesn't seem to be anyone near him.

Certainly Samson Lee isn't saying a word to him. It's a big pile of bobbins made up to try and mitigate Marler.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/england-versus-wales-gypsy-boy-11047331

RPA's Hopley is concerned about the disciplinary process itself.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/35921184

I've been wondering what the status of this upcoming hearing might be.

When World Rugby challenged Horwill's lack of punishment during the Lions tour, it turned out they could only investigate whether the disciplinary panel had followed correct procedure, not re-try the case itself.

Here, it sounds a lot like Marler is to be on trial again.

I'm in the camp that wishes he had been swiftly given a short ban but I do have misgivings about how this is playing out. Justice is about the process as much as it is about the result.

Hopley said "He made a comment when provoked "

Hmmm. Doesn't look like it to me.

Poorfour wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I agree they should be held accountable - but it is the "only if they are caught" attitude that reeks of hypocrisy.

But Guns said that there was no place for racism on the field. A bit of banter is expected, but racist comments need to be dealt with. Marler knew he had crossed the line, otherwise he wouldn't have apologised. I'm glad he did. I don't believe he is a racist, but the comment still needs to be dealt with appropriately.

But he dismissed the possibility that Marler had received (arguably) racist comments of his own as not needing to be addressed because we have no evidence and then went on to make a general statement that props don't need to clean up their act. Marler knew he'd crossed the line and apologised - apparently without even knowing that it had been caught on tv.

How many props - including whoever reportedly "bantered" with Marler - have crossed the line without apologising?

I'm fine with waiting for evidence on the "banter" against Marler, thought I think in the context of the furore this has kicked up it's a bit childish to refuse even to consider it. If Marler's statement is corroborated, it's both partial mitigation and an equivalent offence in its own right.

The bigger issue is with pretending that Marler is the sole bad apple just because no-one else has been caught on a televised mic yet. There is undoubtedly banter, and equally undoubtedly some of it crosses the line. If anything worthwhile is going to come out of this unedifying mess, rugby needs to look at that.

I think you're wrong. This is what Guns said:

"It might be naïve to suggest he is the only guilty party but its hardly worth discussing what may or may not have been said if there is no proof that anything else was said."

So Guns is saying that it's likely that things do get said, and maybe something was said to Marler, but without any real evidence of the alleged remark there's not much value in discussing it. I agree with him. There's only so much we can say about it without any real proof to support it.

How do you know that Marler wasn't the 'sole bad apple'? He might well have been. The say-so of Marler (if that's where COS got his information from) isn't credible and, even if there was credible evidence, in no sense would justify the comment of Marler. WR can only look at the alleged remark to Marler if there is supporting evidence, such as a player admitting to it, or it has been recorded.

That's what I mean by a can of worms. Imagine a player going in at half time and saying so and so called me an English ****....it was 20mins on the game clock, you can read his lips (as people are doing with marler). That is a red card offence and the tmo needs to deal with it...

Because that is now perfectly feasible....

quinsforever wrote:That's what I mean by a can of worms. Imagine a player going in at half time and saying so and so called me an English ****....it was 20mins on the game clock, you can read his lips (as people are doing with marler). That is a red card offence and the tmo needs to deal with it...

Because that is now perfectly feasible....

It isn't. Not without supporting evidence.

LondonTiger wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Has anyone got a link to the interview where it is suggested that members of the Welsh squad have, in the name of banter, joked with Lee about his gypsy heritage?

I'd be interested to see the evidence.

Just this:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-prop-rob-evans-jokes-11005553

Acting like a trash journalist I now get selective with the quotes:

"I remember playing against him when I was like 11, all the boys were talking about Samson Lee, this gypsy."

“The only thing I remember really from the game was the smell. He smells a bit better now!”

Storm in a teacup really. (Though surely most believe that the Marler comments and "crime" are at risk of being blown completely out of proportion. Guilty as charged and small ban sure - but demands for bans between 20 and 52 weeks are <self deleted>)

Not sure where the offence is in there. Firstly, it sounds like the conversation that might cause offence was amongst 11 year olds. Disciplinary panels might be a bit more lenient on an 11 year old Rob Evans, should they decide to look into it. Also, he's not saying he smelled bad because he was a gypsy. The quote just says that they had heard of this Gypsy called Samson Lee. And when playing against him he smelled bad. You'd need to jump to conclusions there to link them together to cause offence.

Griff wrote: You'd need to jump to conclusions there to link them together to cause offence.

Or be desperate to dig for dirt that just isn't there.

lostinwales wrote:

Allty wrote:PS Marler is a role model and should behave like one

He was. Apparently that is how posh english ****'s behave...

He called him a posh bástard, not a posh ENGLISH bástard. There's no need to be insulting lostinwales!

Truth be told most of us are on the fence on this, I didn't even realise that g*psy was a racist term. I'm aware as my girlfriend's children go to school with people from that community that they do prefer to be called travelers, I'm also aware that their children, and the children in our local community are segregated from each other as when they mix violence often ensues.

That this whole thing is still going is absurd beyond belief.

I think i'll play the PC card everytime I get called a POM now because I nor my family have been prisoners. So I take offence and will complain!

GeordieFalcon wrote:That this whole thing is still going is absurd beyond belief.

I think i'll play the PC card everytime I get called a POM now because I nor my family have been prisoners. So I take offence and will complain!  

It's still going because the 6N's failed to take appropriate action, and now WR have stepped in with the hearing due on the 5th April.

It's wrong to describe this as a 'PC card'.

Its completely a PC card issue Munchkin. Nothing more!

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its completely a PC card issue Munchkin. Nothing more!

In your opinion, but many would disagree with you, including me.

Guess I could call victims card

bumble wrote:Marler clearly gets involved on his own accord in the video. There doesn't seem to be anyone near him.

Certainly Samson Lee isn't saying a word to him. It's a big pile of bobbins made up to try and mitigate Marler.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/england-versus-wales-gypsy-boy-11047331

How do you know Lee didn't say it to him 30 seconds earlier? You saying it's bobbins doesn't make it so. The fact you have already made your mind up and that you don't even want to hear Marler's side of it shows you have a pre-ordained agenda.

Griff wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Has anyone got a link to the interview where it is suggested that members of the Welsh squad have, in the name of banter, joked with Lee about his gypsy heritage?

I'd be interested to see the evidence.

Just this:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-prop-rob-evans-jokes-11005553

Acting like a trash journalist I now get selective with the quotes:

"I remember playing against him when I was like 11, all the boys were talking about Samson Lee, this gypsy."

“The only thing I remember really from the game was the smell. He smells a bit better now!”

Storm in a teacup really. (Though surely most believe that the Marler comments and "crime" are at risk of being blown completely out of proportion. Guilty as charged and small ban sure - but demands for bans between 20 and 52 weeks are <self deleted>)

Not sure where the offence is in there. Firstly, it sounds like the conversation that might cause offence was amongst 11 year olds. Disciplinary panels might be a bit more lenient on an 11 year old Rob Evans, should they decide to look into it. Also, he's not saying he smelled bad because he was a gypsy. The quote just says that they had heard of this Gypsy called Samson Lee. And when playing against him he smelled bad. You'd need to jump to conclusions there to link them together to cause offence.

Rob Evans made the remark in the last month, not when he was 11. So when an Englishman calls a man a gypsy it's bad, but when a Welshman does it, it's ok? I'm guessing the fact you are Welsh and England have just won a Grand Slam is purely coincidental.

Munchkin wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its completely a PC card issue Munchkin. Nothing more!

In your opinion, but many would disagree with you, including me.

Guess I could call victims card

I have a suspicion the majority of the general public actually agree, judging by what I keep hearing.

bumble wrote:

Griff wrote: You'd need to jump to conclusions there to link them together to cause offence.

Or be desperate to dig for dirt that just isn't there.

He does use the "gypsy" word though in the interview, which some may well find offensive in of itself. I would think not, but it's clearly a subjective thing.

As for the comment re: smell, it's an odd thing to say in that context and again, I don't think it's too big a stretch to imagine a member of the travelling community taking offence in the context used. Again, it's clearly subjective.

I think it all depends on the context and circumstances personally. I don't think you can attach strict liability to the usage of particular words without close scrutiny of context and circumstances, and I do think the relationship between the individuals involved, what is intended and how they react forms part of that equation.

Munchkin wrote:
I think you're wrong. This is what Guns said:

"It might be naïve to suggest he is the only guilty party but its hardly worth discussing what may or may not have been said if there is no proof that anything else was said."

So Guns is saying that it's likely that things do get said, and maybe something was said to Marler, but without any real evidence of the alleged remark there's not much value in discussing it. I agree with him. There's only so much we can say about it without any real proof to support it.

How do you know that Marler wasn't the 'sole bad apple'? He might well have been. The say-so of Marler (if that's where COS got his information from) isn't credible and, even if there was credible evidence, in no sense would justify the comment of Marler. WR can only look at the alleged remark to Marler if there is supporting evidence, such as a player admitting to it, or it has been recorded.

No. That is part of what Guns said. He followed it with "There is no need for front rows to clean up their act." Perhaps he didn't intend for that to look like a massive overgeneralisation, but I doubt it.

Now we get onto what is credible and what isn't. Having had Conor as my club's DoR for 5 years, and having regularly gone to his press conferences and Q&A sessions, I know that he very rarely speaks out about disciplinary issues. I trust his integrity. In my judgement, COS is very unlikely to say something like that unless he's confident Marler can corroborate it. That only needs another player to have heard it, and be prepared to speak up about it.

Then there's the general question of plausibility. If you really think it's more plausible that Marler is the only guilty party here than that there is a more widespread problem, then I would recommend a course in elementary statistics.

Both of those make it worth discussing what it would mean if a Welsh player has said what COS has reported. It doesn't exonerate Marler, but it does act as partial mitigation. More importantly, it is suggestive of a wider problem and that front rows - and other players - might need to be encouraged to clean up their act.

But hey, if you want to stick your head in the sand and keep on believing that there's only a solitary Englishman to blame, then go right ahead. I doubt anything I can say will change your mind.

pheonix wrote:

Griff wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Has anyone got a link to the interview where it is suggested that members of the Welsh squad have, in the name of banter, joked with Lee about his gypsy heritage?

I'd be interested to see the evidence.

Just this:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-prop-rob-evans-jokes-11005553

Acting like a trash journalist I now get selective with the quotes:

"I remember playing against him when I was like 11, all the boys were talking about Samson Lee, this gypsy."

“The only thing I remember really from the game was the smell. He smells a bit better now!”

Storm in a teacup really. (Though surely most believe that the Marler comments and "crime" are at risk of being blown completely out of proportion. Guilty as charged and small ban sure - but demands for bans between 20 and 52 weeks are <self deleted>)

Not sure where the offence is in there. Firstly, it sounds like the conversation that might cause offence was amongst 11 year olds. Disciplinary panels might be a bit more lenient on an 11 year old Rob Evans, should they decide to look into it. Also, he's not saying he smelled bad because he was a gypsy. The quote just says that they had heard of this Gypsy called Samson Lee. And when playing against him he smelled bad. You'd need to jump to conclusions there to link them together to cause offence.

Rob Evans made the remark in the last month, not when he was 11. So when an Englishman calls a man a gypsy it's bad, but when a Welshman does it, it's ok? I'm guessing the fact you are Welsh and England have just won a Grand Slam is purely coincidental.

Are you for real? Read my posts on here. I've stated repeatedly that if Welsh players have called the English names then they should be banned too. This has absolutely nothing to do with Wales v England, but it was only a matter of time before someone like you brought it to that level. I'm coming at this from a purely code of conduct viewpoint. I coach junior rugby and see young players modelling and replicating what the pros do. These role models from EVERY nation need to watch what they say when broadcast on TV. It's as simple as that. Marler didn't and shouldn't get away with it because of 'heat of the moment'.

On the Rob Evans remark, read the quote above FFS. He says that when they were 11 the boys were talking about this player Samson Lee, a gypsy. So at 11 they talked about the opposition having a gypsy player called Lee. Where is the offence? We've established over and over on this thread and others that saying someone is a gypsy while maybe not being accurate is not in itself offensive. It's descriptive. Goading someone chest out arms outstretched saying 'come on Gypsy boy' is clearly different. Just as stating about Brown 'this English boy' is different from having chest puffed out arms outstretched goading shouting 'you f**king English c***', which should attract the same sanction as the Marler one.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its completely a PC card issue Munchkin. Nothing more!

In your opinion, but many would disagree with you, including me.

Guess I could call victims card

I have a suspicion the majority of the general public actually agree, judging by what I keep hearing.

And what general public would that be?

I've read mixed thoughts on it (some English supporters also think it was wrong) and, as much as I understand the other side of the debate, I will stick to what I believe is factual.

I have no wish to see Marler getting hammered for this, but the comment itself was racist, however intentioned, and that is something that needs to be seen as unacceptable. Otherwise the impressionable of those that follow the game might get the wrong message - that it's acceptable.

Unfortunately the 6N's failure to take the appropriate measured action has only added to further highlight the incident, prolonging its exposure to the media.

With every new development I find myself increasingly wanting 6N's rugby to be the ones facing action. Regardless where you stand on Marler, it's not his fault this has been dragged out so long. That's entirely on the 6N's for not taking what should have been routine action. Their neglect to even bring in the citing officer, who could have clarified things almost as once, deeply concerns me.

pheonix wrote:

Griff wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Has anyone got a link to the interview where it is suggested that members of the Welsh squad have, in the name of banter, joked with Lee about his gypsy heritage?

I'd be interested to see the evidence.

Just this:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-prop-rob-evans-jokes-11005553

Acting like a trash journalist I now get selective with the quotes:

"I remember playing against him when I was like 11, all the boys were talking about Samson Lee, this gypsy."

“The only thing I remember really from the game was the smell. He smells a bit better now!”

Storm in a teacup really. (Though surely most believe that the Marler comments and "crime" are at risk of being blown completely out of proportion. Guilty as charged and small ban sure - but demands for bans between 20 and 52 weeks are <self deleted>)

Not sure where the offence is in there. Firstly, it sounds like the conversation that might cause offence was amongst 11 year olds. Disciplinary panels might be a bit more lenient on an 11 year old Rob Evans, should they decide to look into it. Also, he's not saying he smelled bad because he was a gypsy. The quote just says that they had heard of this Gypsy called Samson Lee. And when playing against him he smelled bad. You'd need to jump to conclusions there to link them together to cause offence.

Rob Evans made the remark in the last month, not when he was 11. So when an Englishman calls a man a gypsy it's bad, but when a Welshman does it, it's ok? I'm guessing the fact you are Welsh and England have just won a Grand Slam is purely coincidental.

Hit the nail on the head there.

Context. DId Evans say it in a provocative way to wind him up? If he did he should be dealt with the same as Marler.

He wont because hes not English LT,

Seems one rule for one...and another for the rest.

I repeat blown out of all proportion....the PC / Human rights brigade.

I genuinely fear for the way this world is going.

Munchkin wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Its completely a PC card issue Munchkin. Nothing more!

In your opinion, but many would disagree with you, including me.

Guess I could call victims card

I have a suspicion the majority of the general public actually agree, judging by what I keep hearing.

And what general public would that be?

I've read mixed thoughts on it (some English supporters also think it was wrong) and, as much as I understand the other side of the debate, I will stick to what I believe is factual.

I have no wish to see Marler getting hammered for this, but the comment itself was racist, however intentioned, and that is something that needs to be seen as unacceptable. Otherwise the impressionable of those that follow the game might get the wrong message - that it's acceptable.

Unfortunately the 6N's failure to take the appropriate measured action has only added to further highlight the incident, prolonging its exposure to the media.

Not in my eyes its not. Its nowhere near racist. Its not like skin colour or such. Its no different to me being called a POM or such.

GeordieFalcon wrote:He wont because hes not English LT,

Seems one rule for one...and another for the rest.

I repeat blown out of all proportion....the PC / Human rights brigade.

I genuinely fear for the way this world is going.

Sad to see this way of thinking tbh. Of course words take on different connotations in different circumstances and places. It's not pc to be against racism even if it is towards Gypsies. If this sort of thing had been directed towards Itoje, Joseph etc we wouldn't have half the people defending it.

That's the whole point 7.5

Its a witch hunt over a player in a subject that so many don't even know if its racist or not.

Racism should not be tolerated. Simple as....but I just don't believe calling someone a Gypsy boy is racist.

And whilst I don't believe everything is the world v England, I do wonder if marler had been on the receiving end...would there have been the same witch hunt....or imagine Hartley being "name called"?

It would have been laughed off and told to grow up its name calling and juvenile!

Even Lee has said its nothing!

The whole thing is laughable!

GeordieFalcon wrote:He wont because hes not English LT,

Seems one rule for one...and another for the rest.

I repeat blown out of all proportion....the PC / Human rights brigade.

I genuinely fear for the way this world is going.

Oh boo hoo the poor English players.

And don't forget it Germs