When should World Rugby Intervene.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 29 Mar 2016, 7:44 pm

First topic message reminder :

As we all know, World Rugby have decided to intervene in the Joe Marler case. A 6 Nations Committee (AKA the Blazers of Dublin) had some sort of hearing and decided not to pursue the matter. World Rugby have stepped in and called for a new hearing in a situation the RPA (Rugby Players Association - effectively the players union) liken to trying a man twice for the same crime (or Double Jeopardy).

Now there is no point thrashing out the wrongs of Marler - that has been discussed to death and there are extremists on both sides of the argument who frankly make any reasoned debate untenable.

What I would like to highlight (again) is another case. On 27th January an EPCR Disciplinary panel (interestingly also run by the Blazers of Dublin or BoD) found Laurent Sempere, the Stade Francais prop, guilty of a mid range offence of making contact with the eye(s) and/or eye area of the Leicester Tigers prop, Marcos Ayerza. Sempere was banned for 15 weeks.

http://www.epcrugby.com/discipline/32495.php#.Vvq6OvkrLcs

Four weeks later, in the midst of a player shortage, Stade appealed this ban to a panel made up of FFR/LNR officials (AKA the Blazers of Paris -BoP) who overturned the ban. It means that Sempere was allowed to immediately resume playing - but within the T14 only. This was referred to World Rugby for adjudication, but they declined to get involved.

So why are they willing to get involved in one case (even if I believe the BoD made the wrong call) and not in the other.

by bumble Wed 30 Mar 2016, 2:34 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:

Independent inquiry into what? Why it wasn't cited?

I believe so. And why the proper process had not been adhered to by Six Nations Rugby Ltd. i.e. - who came to the conclusion that it was "in the heat of the moment"?, who decided the matter was closed and when?

by bumble Wed 30 Mar 2016, 2:35 pm

bumble wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:

Independent inquiry into what? Why it wasn't cited?

I believe so. And why the proper process had not been adhered to by Six Nations Rugby Ltd. i.e. - who exactly came to the conclusion that it was "in the heat of the moment"?, who decided the matter was closed and when?

by HammerofThunor Wed 30 Mar 2016, 2:45 pm

bumble wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:

Independent inquiry into what? Why it wasn't cited?

I believe so. And why the proper process had not been adhered to by Six Nations Rugby Ltd. i.e. - who came to the conclusion that it was "in the heat of the moment"?, who decided the matter was closed and when?

If the proper process had been adhered to by the 6 Nations then it wouldn't have been considered as he wasn't cited. I bet whoever did the press-release is regretting the phraseology now.

by bumble Wed 30 Mar 2016, 2:46 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
bumble wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:

Independent inquiry into what? Why it wasn't cited?

I believe so. And why the proper process had not been adhered to by Six Nations Rugby Ltd. i.e. - who came to the conclusion that it was "in the heat of the moment"?, who decided the matter was closed and when?

If the proper process had been adhered to by the 6 Nations then it wouldn't have been considered as he wasn't cited. I bet whoever did the press-release is regretting the phraseology now.

But they were ordered to by World Rugby and refused according to the press.

by HammerofThunor Wed 30 Mar 2016, 2:48 pm

bumble wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
bumble wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:

Independent inquiry into what? Why it wasn't cited?

I believe so. And why the proper process had not been adhered to by Six Nations Rugby Ltd. i.e. - who came to the conclusion that it was "in the heat of the moment"?, who decided the matter was closed and when?

If the proper process had been adhered to by the 6 Nations then it wouldn't have been considered as he wasn't cited. I bet whoever did the press-release is regretting the phraseology now.

But they were ordered to by World Rugby and refused according to the press.

Hadn't seen that. Reference?

by bumble Wed 30 Mar 2016, 2:58 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
bumble wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
bumble wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:

Independent inquiry into what? Why it wasn't cited?

I believe so. And why the proper process had not been adhered to by Six Nations Rugby Ltd. i.e. - who came to the conclusion that it was "in the heat of the moment"?, who decided the matter was closed and when?

If the proper process had been adhered to by the 6 Nations then it wouldn't have been considered as he wasn't cited. I bet whoever did the press-release is regretting the phraseology now.

But they were ordered to by World Rugby and refused according to the press.

Hadn't seen that. Reference?

"World Rugby acted because if the proper process had not been gone through, it had the power to order the Six Nations to make a full independent inquiry as the tournament organiser responsible for upholding the regulations of the game. In the event of a refusal by the Six Nations, it could convene its own hearing, which it has done with a date set to be fixed next week."

Guardian

by HammerofThunor Wed 30 Mar 2016, 3:14 pm

Thanks. Actual link would be good as I can't find it on their website. There are quite a few articles on the subject!

by bumble Wed 30 Mar 2016, 6:08 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:Thanks. Actual link would be good as I can't find it on their website. There are quite a few articles on the subject!

I think it was "The Breakdown" email that gets sent to subscribers.

by SimonofSurrey Wed 30 Mar 2016, 6:26 pm

If you're minded to be very generous, I guess you could consider World Rugby as the game's Court of Appeal, ie a higher body which looks into apparent miscarriages of justice, rather than seeing this all as a laboured attempt to nail JM under what smacks of double jeopardy.

I continue to be of the view that he should have got 14 days or so - ie had to miss the GS decider - on a point of principle, that no personal insult of that kind is acceptable under any circumstances, even if said in the heat of the moment. There are plenty of verbal ways to seek to get under an opponent's skin, as it were. And for those who disagree, how would you feel if an opponent had decided to express their frustration at a bit of good play by Itoje - even in the heat of the moment - by calling him the 'N' word. Inexcusable.

JM's outburst was a stupid, stupid thing to do - as he himself admits. But it needs also to be sanctioned, as an example of behaviour that crossed the line beyond what is acceptable and so needs to be nipped in the bud before the same idea escalates into even more offensive personal language. It's just a shame it appears to be taking three goes (1/ ref/TMO - bottled it; 2/ 6N - brushed it under the carpet) to do so.

by Guest Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:03 pm

SimonofSurrey wrote:If you're minded to be very generous, I guess you could consider World Rugby as the game's Court of Appeal, ie a higher body which looks into apparent miscarriages of justice, rather than seeing this all as a laboured attempt to nail JM under what smacks of double jeopardy.

I continue to be of the view that he should have got 14 days or so - ie had to miss the GS decider - on a point of principle, that no personal insult of that kind is acceptable under any circumstances, even if said in the heat of the moment. There are plenty of verbal ways to seek to get under an opponent's skin, as it were. And for those who disagree, how would you feel if an opponent had decided to express their frustration at a bit of good play by Itoje - even in the heat of the moment - by calling him the 'N' word. Inexcusable.

JM's outburst was a stupid, stupid thing to do - as he himself admits. But it needs also to be sanctioned, as an example of behaviour that crossed the line beyond what is acceptable and so needs to be nipped in the bud before the same idea escalates into even more offensive personal language. It's just a shame it appears to be taking three goes (1/ ref/TMO - bottled it; 2/ 6N - brushed it under the carpet) to do so.

I agree wholeheartedly with this post. Very fair and well balanced I feel clap

by Allty Wed 30 Mar 2016, 9:27 pm

[quote="SimonofSurrey"]If you're minded to be very generous, I guess you could consider World Rugby as the game's Court of Appeal, ie a higher body which looks into apparent miscarriages of justice, rather than seeing this all as a laboured attempt to nail JM under what smacks of double jeopardy.

I continue to be of the view that he should have got 14 days or so - ie had to miss the GS decider - on a point of principle, that no personal insult of that kind is acceptable under any circumstances, even if said in the heat of the moment. There are plenty of verbal ways to seek to get under an opponent's skin, as it were. And for those who disagree, how would you feel if an opponent had decided to express their frustration at a bit of good play by Itoje - even in the heat of the moment - by calling him the 'N' word. Inexcusable.

JM's outburst was a stupid, stupid thing to do - as he himself admits. But it needs also to be sanctioned, as an example of behaviour that crossed the line beyond what is acceptable and so needs to be nipped in the bud before the same idea escalates into even more offensive personal language. It's just a shame it appears to be taking three goes (1/ ref/TMO - bottled it; 2/ 6N - brushed it under the carpet) to do so.[/quote]

_________________

Top post Simon

by bumble Wed 30 Mar 2016, 11:21 pm

SimonofSurrey wrote:If you're minded to be very generous, I guess you could consider World Rugby as the game's Court of Appeal, ie a higher body which looks into apparent miscarriages of justice, rather than seeing this all as a laboured attempt to nail JM under what smacks of double jeopardy.

I continue to be of the view that he should have got 14 days or so - ie had to miss the GS decider - on a point of principle, that no personal insult of that kind is acceptable under any circumstances, even if said in the heat of the moment. There are plenty of verbal ways to seek to get under an opponent's skin, as it were. And for those who disagree, how would you feel if an opponent had decided to express their frustration at a bit of good play by Itoje - even in the heat of the moment - by calling him the 'N' word. Inexcusable.

JM's outburst was a stupid, stupid thing to do - as he himself admits. But it needs also to be sanctioned, as an example of behaviour that crossed the line beyond what is acceptable and so needs to be nipped in the bud before the same idea escalates into even more offensive personal language. It's just a shame it appears to be taking three goes (1/ ref/TMO - bottled it; 2/ 6N - brushed it under the carpet) to do so.

Well said.

by TJ Thu 31 Mar 2016, 7:40 am

When should World rugby intervene - when there has been what appears to be a missapplication of the laws.

I do not think its right that any bias was shown by the 6 N committee or that Beaumont is anything but an honest and honourable man. I think the folk who decided Marlers apology was OK are like some on here - simply not understanding what racism is and how serious it can be which is why Marler was let off.

I don't think the ref should have done anything on field about it but he should have been cited but given a minimal sanction. then this would have all been over.

Its an obvious racist comment but its a pretty low level offense. IMO even a citing commissioners warning ie the equivalent of a yellow would have been enough. But stating that as he apologised no action need be taken is clearly wrong hence wrold rugby intervening.

The worst aspect of this for me is that the 6N committee letting him off has actually been a huge disservice to Marler causing the storm in a teacup to go on and on and quite possibly leading to a greater sanction that was really needed

by aucklandlaurie Thu 31 Mar 2016, 7:59 am

Must admit I didnt take much notice of this story when it was on a few weeks back, however I fail to see how World rugby can now commence some sort of proceedings, how would it have jurisdiction and wouldnt it be "out of Time"?

If there had a been a citing, followed by a discplinary hearing then yes World Rugby could launch its own appeal.( even though it wasnt a direct party at the first hearing) so long as it did so in the allowable time to file an appeal.

by exile jack Thu 31 Mar 2016, 8:33 am

Hmmmm.As I understand it Sempere was one of three Stade players banned for eye gouging this year.The first, Raisuqe,was banned via a Top14 disciplinary panel.The other two,Sempere and Gabrillagues,were banned by an EPCR disciplinary panel.Only Sempere's ban in France alone was overturned on legal opinion over what constitutes evidence under French law.There was a similar case in 2008 when Tincu's 18 week ban for gouging an Osprey's player was overturned in France alone.I could see why World Rugby would be reluctant to involve itself in different legal jurisdictions but surely they would want to ensure consistency of approach for the consideration of disciplinary offences.As I see the Sempere case any PRO12,Aviva or Top14 side can now appeal an EPCR decision to get a player available for domestic competition.That's having a laugh.

There's another thread on Marler but World Rugby had to intervene given the complete absence of transparency on the timeline and the personnel involved in the decision to take no further action.It doesn't compare favourably to the Potgieter and Pocock incident and the speed and visible outcome of its resolution.

by bumble Thu 31 Mar 2016, 11:07 am

The whole idea about Sempere is that he was found guilty of gouging with a distinct lack of evidence. The hearing just assumed he was guilty. Which was a farce.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 31 Mar 2016, 11:26 am

Physical evidence of Ayerzas (?) eye and a picture of his hand across his face wasn't it?

by Cyril Thu 31 Mar 2016, 11:42 am

It does sounds as though the 6 Nations 'administration' is now in a lot more trouble than Marler is.

by bumble Thu 31 Mar 2016, 11:57 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Physical evidence of Ayerzas (?) eye and a picture of his hand across his face wasn't it?

Have you got the pic?

I've seen this. Which wasn't punished at all. Things like this annoy people like Sempere

https://twitter.com/RickyJH85/status/711281931846074368

by No 7&1/2 Thu 31 Mar 2016, 12:01 pm

No I haven't but that's what it was based on. In any event strange they didn't appeal straight away to the people who issued the ban. That's where WR probably needs to intervene, disciplinary processes need to be as consistent as possible.

by cakeordeath Thu 31 Mar 2016, 1:10 pm

It's the naivety of the 6N disciplinary committee which astounds me. I think it's pretty obvious to ~~everyone~~ most people that what Marler did was wrong.
However sometimes tempers flair things are said which are aimed to hurt rather than being the belief of the person who said it.

All that was needed was couple of weeks ban and an apology and this would have been dealt with and how the committee couldn't see the repercussions of not handing out a ban is beyond me.

by Fanster Thu 31 Mar 2016, 4:02 pm

bumble

The Watson contact in the air is a good point, although pretty inocuous it looks far worse than Francis's hand in the face, mainly because of the second hand joining it, and the pull of the head while the French player was off the ground. When you add things like Marlers elbow, Browns repeated kicks to the face of Murray etc, it's easy to see why theres been an outcry by a large population who feel unjustly treated by refereeing/citing standards this year.

I fear for Marler, mainly because he's made numerous comments, and the media whitchhunt might combine to make him an example!

by nathan Thu 31 Mar 2016, 5:24 pm

TJ wrote:When should World rugby intervene - when there has been what appears to be a missapplication of the laws.

I do not think its right that any bias was shown by the 6 N committee or that Beaumont is anything but an honest and honourable man. I think the folk who decided Marlers apology was OK are like some on here - simply not understanding what racism is and how serious it can be which is why Marler was let off.

I don't think the ref should have done anything on field about it but he should have been cited but given a minimal sanction. then this would have all been over.

Its an obvious racist comment but its a pretty low level offense. IMO even a citing commissioners warning ie the equivalent of a yellow would have been enough. But stating that as he apologised no action need be taken is clearly wrong hence wrold rugby intervening.

The worst aspect of this for me is that the 6N committee letting him off has actually been a huge disservice to Marler causing the storm in a teacup to go on and on and quite possibly leading to a greater sanction that was really needed

This happens almost every game though

by Fanster Thu 31 Mar 2016, 7:30 pm

Very valid point nathan!

by No 7&1/2 Fri 01 Apr 2016, 8:29 am

Fanster wrote:bumble

The Watson contact in the air is a good point, although pretty inocuous it looks far worse than Francis's hand in the face, mainly because of the second hand joining it, and the pull of the head while the French player was off the ground. When you add things like Marlers elbow, Browns repeated kicks to the face of Murray etc, it's easy to see why theres been an outcry by a large population who feel unjustly treated by refereeing/citing standards this year.

I fear for Marler, mainly because he's made numerous comments, and the media whitchhunt might combine to make him an example!

The Watson one is unusual as he's obviously going for the ball in the air and committed. Given they've just swung one way to allow proper competition again it wouldn't have surprised me had he been cited but I don't think there's anything in it. Marler could well have been banned twice over and the Brown outcry is simply by people who think the laws need changing and refuse to acknowledge it was fine for him to compete.

by lostinwales Fri 01 Apr 2016, 11:29 am

Watson's hands were around Fickou's face but his fingers were not in his eyes. It is something that can be made to look worse than it was through the right kind of editing, and you can see why it might have led to more problems but I too believe there was nothing in it and the lack of any kind of complaint from the French makes me think that they felt the same.

by pheonix Fri 01 Apr 2016, 12:44 pm

World Rugby only intervenes when it thinks rugby (and ergo themselves) will receive negative headlines and PR. If they, and the usual suspects on here with their own agenda, were really serious about cracking down on language used on or off the field that could be construed as racial or bigoted, it would investigate Rob Evans calling Samson Lee 'this gypsy' and the bigoted remarks made to Joe Marler. But it won't because both incidents haven't made as nearly as much negative headlines as JM's comments.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 01 Apr 2016, 12:48 pm

You think the 2 examples are the same pheonix?

by TJ Fri 01 Apr 2016, 1:50 pm

The remarks towards Marler were not biggotted or racist in any manner. Posh english C*** the insult is the C*** thus its not racist. Calling someone Gypsy boy - the insult is Gypsy thus its racist. I don't know why some find this so hard to see.

by lostinwales Fri 01 Apr 2016, 2:09 pm

TJ wrote:The remarks towards Marler were not biggotted or racist in any manner. Posh english C*** the insult is the C*** thus its not racist. Calling someone Gypsy boy - the insult is Gypsy thus its racist. I don't know why some find this so hard to see.

The problem is that from that you can deduce that to call someone a c*** is OK but to call them a gypsy is not. Given that you cannot type one of these words on this site and yet can type the other just adds to the confusion.

You also have to consider how people would react if the reported words addressed to Marler had gone the other way with 'Welsh' substituted for 'English' (and maybe something else for posh...)

by Cyril Fri 01 Apr 2016, 2:25 pm

TJ wrote:The remarks towards Marler were not biggotted or racist in any manner. Posh english C*** the insult is the C*** thus its not racist. Calling someone Gypsy boy - the insult is Gypsy thus its racist. I don't know why some find this so hard to see.

You're still drawing attention to someone's nationality as you insult them. Why would you need to say 'English' if the insult is in the 'posh' and the 'c***' parts? Someone saying that would be implying that there is a connection between all three descriptions. Sounds xenophobic (at best) to me.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 01 Apr 2016, 2:28 pm

If Lee has thrown those insults at Marler and it comes out in the WR review it's likely he'll have something to answer to as well.

by aucklandlaurie Fri 01 Apr 2016, 2:42 pm

TJ wrote:The remarks towards Marler were not biggotted or racist in any manner. Posh english C*** the insult is the C*** thus its not racist. Calling someone Gypsy boy - the insult is Gypsy thus its racist. I don't know why some find this so hard to see.

Sometimes I read some comments on here, and I just wonder how much in Gaga land some of you guys are. this post is one of those examples.

by TJ Fri 01 Apr 2016, 2:52 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
TJ wrote:The remarks towards Marler were not biggotted or racist in any manner. Posh english C*** the insult is the C*** thus its not racist. Calling someone Gypsy boy - the insult is Gypsy thus its racist. I don't know why some find this so hard to see.

Sometimes I read some comments on here, and I just wonder how much in Gaga land some of you guys are. this post is one of those examples.

Unfortunatly its you thats in La la land here. I understand what racism is. As an English man with an english name and accent living in Scotland I understand what anti english racism is. I have been on the receiving end of anti english racism. I understand that this comment to Marler is not under any definition anti english racism

Its as simple as that. I also understand that many folk on here remain confused about racism which is rather disappointing in this era

by Cyril Fri 01 Apr 2016, 2:54 pm

TJ, what would constitute anti-English racism in your eyes?

by aucklandlaurie Fri 01 Apr 2016, 2:56 pm

TJ wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
TJ wrote:The remarks towards Marler were not biggotted or racist in any manner. Posh english C*** the insult is the C*** thus its not racist. Calling someone Gypsy boy - the insult is Gypsy thus its racist. I don't know why some find this so hard to see.

Sometimes I read some comments on here, and I just wonder how much in Gaga land some of you guys are. this post is one of those examples.

Unfortunatly its you thats in La la land here. I understand what racism is. As an English man with an english name and accent living in Scotland I understand what anti english racism is. I have been on the receiving end of anti english racism. I understand that this comment to Marler is not under any definition anti english racism

Its as simple as that. I also understand that many folk on here remain confused about racism which is rather disappointing in this era

How can I be in LA LA land when I know the difference between obscene language and insulting language, and you apparently dont?

by exile jack Fri 01 Apr 2016, 3:06 pm

pheonix wrote:World Rugby only intervenes when it thinks rugby (and ergo themselves) will receive negative headlines and PR. If they, and the usual suspects on here with their own agenda, were really serious about cracking down on language used on or off the field that could be construed as racial or bigoted, it would investigate Rob Evans calling Samson Lee 'this gypsy' and the bigoted remarks made to Joe Marler. But it won't because both incidents haven't made as nearly as much negative headlines as JM's comments.

You've risen again.WR had to intervene because,for whatever reason,the RFU has failed to apply it's Inclusion Policy to the Marler incident.If the RFU had applied the same speedy response of the Australian Rugby Union to the Potgieter incident in Super Rugby this whole sorry affair wouldn't have lasted three days after the match.But it didn't.

Wrt to the belief that Samson L made discriminatory remarks to Joe M you are free as a rugby supporter,as other supporters did laudably with the Nigel Owens comments,to report them to the RFU and the WRU(who have an Equality Standard on Equality and Diversity).They can investigate the remarks and if proven they can apply the appropriate sanction.The same path is open to O'Shea and Haskell.What is odd is that neither Joe M nor,even more surprisingly,Eddie J made any reference to these alleged remarks at half-time in the match nor subsequently.Talk about a deafening silence from one of the most outspoken men in world rugby.

If you are unable or unwilling to name the Welsh player or players you allege guilty of bigoted remarks you can follow the redress path i've described above.

Personally,i shall no longer tell the joke of the englishman,welshman,irishman and scotsman who walk into a gay bar full of gorillas eating bananas and drinking pints of creme de menthe.It's clearly discriminatory and homophobic,both things I detest deeply.

by Hoonercat Fri 01 Apr 2016, 4:45 pm

TJ wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
TJ wrote:The remarks towards Marler were not biggotted or racist in any manner. Posh english C*** the insult is the C*** thus its not racist. Calling someone Gypsy boy - the insult is Gypsy thus its racist. I don't know why some find this so hard to see.

Sometimes I read some comments on here, and I just wonder how much in Gaga land some of you guys are. this post is one of those examples.

Unfortunatly its you thats in La la land here. I understand what racism is. As an English man with an english name and accent living in Scotland I understand what anti english racism is. I have been on the receiving end of anti english racism. I understand that this comment to Marler is not under any definition anti english racism

I suspect being English had little to do with it Whistle

TJ wrote:Its as simple as that. I also understand that many folk on here remain confused about racism which is rather disappointing in this era

Clearly, given that a Welsh woman was found guilty IN A COURT OF LAW of racism for calling someone an English cow yet you think English c*** isn't racist Rolling Eyes

by Hoonercat Fri 01 Apr 2016, 4:47 pm

TJ wrote:The remarks towards Marler were not biggotted or racist in any manner. Posh english C*** the insult is the C*** thus its not racist. Calling someone Gypsy boy - the insult is Gypsy thus its racist. I don't know why some find this so hard to see.

Gypsy C*** would have been ok then, by your logic Rolling Eyes

by TJ Fri 01 Apr 2016, 6:12 pm

Its all about context. the two comments are in no way comparable in this context - this is the bit some folk on here seem to find hard to understand. Anti english racism does exist, those words could well be construed as racist but IMO are not in this context. Hoonercat - got a link to the context of that prosecution?

And no it would not be OK to call someone that - as "gypsy" is stillin there

I am astonished how many of you are apologists for racism and seem to find racism so hard to understand.

As I have said. - as an englishman with an english accent living in Scotland I understand what anti english racism is

Do you really find being called English when you are representing England racist? - weird contorted logic.

Anyway - I have wasted enough time attempting to bring some understanding of this to folk who do not want to understand but instead want to find excuses for the inexcusable

Marler was representing England - therefore to call him english is not racist. Lee was representing wales - to call him a gypsy is racist

by RDSguru Fri 01 Apr 2016, 6:20 pm

TJ: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/05/david-mitchell-racism-insults-wales

by nathan Fri 01 Apr 2016, 6:31 pm

Right TJ, stop being a jackass and labling everyone who disagrees with your definition of racism an apologist for racism. That's a bloody offensive thing to say.

You are coming across really arrogant and thinking only your definition is correct. The link below is the result of a Welsh woman calling an English woman an "English Cow". Another example of racism that's noted on that article is a bloke calling someone a sheep shagger.

Living in Leicestershire which is one of he most diverse city's in the UK, you see racism and we (including myself) spend time and effort educating people. So for you to come on here and say we are apologists for racism is a massive insult to me when I probably do more than you educating people.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/wales/10025741/Woman-fined-for-racist-English-insult.html

by TJ Fri 01 Apr 2016, 6:45 pm

Its not my definition - its the generally accepted one. Many folk on here are acting as apologists for racism.

I fully accept there can be anti english racism - how many times do I have to say it - as an englishman living in Scotland I know this - but it is utterly ludicrous to attempt to claim that to call someone who is representing england "english" is racist - its just simply ridiculous.

by lostinwales Fri 01 Apr 2016, 6:51 pm

TJ wrote:Its not my definition - its the generally accepted one. Many folk on here are acting as apologists for racism.

I fully accept there can be anti english racism - how many times do I have to say it - as an englishman living in Scotland I know this - but it is utterly ludicrous to attempt to claim that to call someone who is representing england "english" is racist - its just simply ridiculous.

Lines like that drive me nuts. Thats just a way of saying we can't debate it - which is all wrong.

by nathan Fri 01 Apr 2016, 6:57 pm

TJ wrote:Its not my definition - its the generally accepted one. Many folk on here are acting as apologists for racism.

I fully accept there can be anti english racism - how many times do I have to say it - as an englishman living in Scotland I know this - but it is utterly ludicrous to attempt to claim that to call someone who is representing england "english" is racist - its just simply ridiculous.

This will be the last I say on this as I'm not going debate it with you.

You are shooting from the hip and calling people apologists for racism because they don't agree with what you believe is the generally accepted one - and that's the problem, you think because something is generally accepted that means it ok. It doesn't and if that were the case we would still be in the stone ages.

You've just changed your argument, previous posts said that using it in conjunction with harsh words is racist. Not calling someone English.

I can see you will continue to argue and move the goal posts as it appears, but from reading this thread it appears you are more an apologist for racism than the ones you are calling out.

by Cyril Fri 01 Apr 2016, 7:20 pm

TJ wrote:Its not my definition - its the generally accepted one. Many folk on here are acting as apologists for racism.

I fully accept there can be anti english racism - how many times do I have to say it - as an englishman living in Scotland I know this - but it is utterly ludicrous to attempt to claim that to call someone who is representing england "english" is racist - its just simply ridiculous.

I asked you earlier what you thought would constitute anti-English racism, but no answer yet.

Can you clarify? You're not coming across very well here.

by TJ Fri 01 Apr 2016, 8:37 pm

nathan wrote:

You've just changed your argument, previous posts said that using it in conjunction with harsh words is racist. Not calling someone English.

I can see you will continue to argue and move the goal posts as it appears, but from reading this thread it appears you are more an apologist for racism than the ones you are calling out.

I have not changed my argument one bit. Completely consistent.

Anti English racism - If I was in a pub in Leith and told to "Eff off back to England you posh english C" then that would be just about racist. Or being called a "White settler" as an englishman in Scotland that would be racist.

by Heaf Sat 02 Apr 2016, 12:14 am

I find the claim that just being English and living in Scotland makes someone more qualified to judge what constitutes a racist comment than a court of law rather odd ... how can calling someone an English cow be classed as racially aggravated but an English C*** not?

Both are designed to be insulting comments and both contain references to nationality that are redundant unless the insult is meant to be linked to their nationality. Why not just call them a cow or c*** if it's not meant to be racist?

by aucklandlaurie Sat 02 Apr 2016, 8:27 am

TJ wrote:Its all about context. the two comments are in no way comparable in this context - this is the bit some folk on here seem to find hard to understand. Anti english racism does exist, those words could well be construed as racist but IMO are not in this context. Hoonercat - got a link to the context of that prosecution?

And no it would not be OK to call someone that - as "gypsy" is stillin there

I am astonished how many of you are apologists for racism and seem to find racism so hard to understand.

As I have said. - as an englishman with an english accent living in Scotland I understand what anti english racism is

Do you really find being called English when you are representing England racist? - weird contorted logic.

Anyway - I have wasted enough time attempting to bring some understanding of this to folk who do not want to understand but instead want to find excuses for the inexcusable

Marler was representing England - therefore to call him english is not racist. Lee was representing wales - to call him a gypsy is racist

I dont think its racism that we dont understand, I think its more the fact that its your definition of racism that we dont understand, I get the feeling thats its not because youve got an English name and live in scotland that you receive derogatory comments but probably more along the lines its because youre a bit of a Muppet.

To suggest thats its racist to call Lee a gypsy because he was at the time representing Wales is very hard for me to understand, for example look at a team like the All Blacks, they represent New Zealand, the half back is Aaron Smith (English name) he is of the Maori race, if you called him a Maori, Im sure you would find he would be very proud and take it as a compliment, he is very proud of his race, the Maori are not only a very fine race of people but have a very rich, unique heritage, all New Zealanders are proud of the Maori and their culture and you might have seen example of this when the Haka is performed.
You could also say the same of the left winger, Julian Savea ( of the Samoan race) he would not in any way feel as if he was suffering racial descrmination if you called him a Samoan, when he was playing for New Zealand. he also would feel very proud and appreciate how fortunate he is to represent the Samoan community who are massively proud of him. as well as all New Zealanders.

Perhaps Lee should be more proud of his Gypsy race?

by Sin é Sat 02 Apr 2016, 11:42 am

'Gypsey' is a pejorative term though (all "Gypsies" are thieves and troublesome etc, etc.). His ethnicity is Roma. If Marler had called him a Roma, it wouldn't have been a racial slur.

by Sponsored content