Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, LeeF said:

Was he? 

Submissions were sent in by Rangers which included eye witness accounts which heard what was said and based solely on watching the video there definitely was something not very pleasant said 

I don't disagree but with balance of probability you would look at the reaction and you believe that what was said wasn't happy birthday. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes it is racist - dismissing it as not is just as much of a problem as the racism itself

Without picking on specific posters some of the casual racism/ignorance in this thread is pretty depressing. I completely get not wanting to throw Clubb to the wolves without a fair hearing but active

12 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Does he need video or sound recording of it. If you watch the Rangers player in a Europa league game when the opposition players cups his hand and speaks to the player so no one else could lip read or hear is comment, the player reacted to his comment. But the player was found guilty regardless of no audio or visual evidence. 

Yeah I suppose that is a good direct comparison.

The reason UEFA "got" Kudela is because his defence was, being kind, an unbelievable joke. This is what people looking for "proof" or "truth" need to understand - in these situations people make judgement calls based on the available evidence and what is the most believable story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I don't disagree but with balance of probability you would look at the reaction and you believe that what was said wasn't happy birthday. 

Definitely. Add in the other witnesses and I am certain that UEFA reached the correct decision albeit the length of the ban is another matter

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

It’s grown considerably in the last few years and especially in the last 12 months.

It really hasn’t. No matter what the Free Speech Union claim.

  • Like 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Yeah I suppose that is a good direct comparison.

The reason UEFA "got" Kudela is because his defence was, being kind, an unbelievable joke. This is what people looking for "proof" or "truth" need to understand - in these situations people make judgement calls based on the available evidence and what is the most believable story.

The George Flanagan testicle attack last month is a good example of this.

The two players involved had differing versions of events (Flanagan denying he had done anything at all) and the RFL made a judgement call - If I remember correctly they said something along the lines of Jack Bussey's version of events was more believable - there was no evidence either way.

Edited by Barley Mow
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

It’s grown considerably in the last few years and especially in the last 12 months.

Having been at a Russell group Uni with notoriously liberal policies between 2016 to late last year I will stand by my ascertation that this is massively overblown. Most students couldn't care less.

I know its a different issue but take the littering of parks in student areas whenever the sun is out. The narrative would have you believe that all students are vegan ecowarriors who love the planet more than themselves and want to join Extinction Rebellion - yet the reality is, and I really do dislike this term, the silent majority just don't care that much. Rather than active support for causes, I think there is far more student apathy towards most issues and therefore little in the way of opposition to the passionately loud, and disproportionately left wing, voices on campus. Gender Neutral toilets, couldn't care less.

I should qualify this by saying I was a member of the Uni Labour Society, helped with the launch parties of the feminist magazine a few of my mates were committee members on, studied History (a subject disproportionately left leaning in academia) and was friends with people who occasionally thought Nigel Farage was going a bit soft or stood for local council elections for the Tory party. I'm perfectly capable of being friends with most people, agreeing to disagree on certain issues. I'm of an age where plenty of girls put "no tories" in their tinder bios - yet I still think this is massively overblown.

Edited by Tommygilf
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Barley Mow said:

The George Flanagan testicle attack last month is a good example of this.

The two players involved had differing versions of events (Flanagan denying he had done anything at all) and the RFL made a judgement call - If I remember correctly they said something along the lines of Jack Bussey's version of events was more believable - there was no evidence either way.

Quite, its about judging what you think happened based on the available evidence. Not searching for objective truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only two points to make about this , if you read Andre Savelio's statement "I did not report it initially as I was going to deal with it myself the next time we came into contact"  So presumably if Tony Clubb had stayed on the field and the two had come into contact. This thread would not exist and how many other exchanges that cause a scuffle on the field are similar in origin with a what goes on the field stays on it mentality.

I said two points but here's the third, Tony Clubb did not come back on the field post half time but did he participate in the "well played" bit that takes place between the two sides after the final hooter. That might be more illustrative of what the Hull players felt..

Quote

When the pinch comes the common people will turn out to be more intelligent than the clever ones. I certainly hope so.

George Orwell
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

Only two points to make about this , if you read Andre Savelio's statement "I did not report it initially as I was going to deal with it myself the next time we came into contact"  So presumably if Tony Clubb had stayed on the field and the two had come into contact. This thread would not exist and how many other exchanges that cause a scuffle on the field are similar in origin with a what goes on the field stays on it mentality.

I said two points but here's the third, Tony Clubb did not come back on the field post half time but did he participate in the "well played" bit that takes place between the two sides after the final hooter. That might be more illustrative of what the Hull players felt..

According to savelio's statement,  16 wigan players did the after match 'good games'

 

1 didn't 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

It really hasn’t. No matter what the Free Speech Union claim.

It really has. (No idea who they are and not interested in finding out) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Having been at a Russell group Uni with notoriously liberal policies between 2016 to late last year I will stand by my ascertation that this is massively overblown. Most students couldn't care less.

My daughter is a student at Leeds Uni . I agree with what you say.

But it doesn't matter if the silent majority back something or not, they tend to get swept up in it all. Most people don't want war but it doesn't stop half of the world being a warzone. 

Anyway, with all respect, I'm not interested. Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

My daughter is a student at Leeds Uni . I agree with what you say.

But it doesn't matter if the silent majority back something or not, they tend to get swept up in it all. Most people don't want war but it doesn't stop half of the world being a warzone. 

Anyway, with all respect, I'm not interested. Cheers.

Fair enough!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on it is that the alleged comment in the accusation is racist so has no place in this game. Whether the alleged comment was racist or not should not really be debatable as it clearly is by all definitions of the term "racist" - it was a derogatory comment made that involved race.

I don't agree with the people that this we shouldn't discuss it. Why shouldn't we? As long as we acknowledge that it is alleged, I don't see the issue. Discussion about it gages feeling on the issue (both sides), which helps educate.

Same for those saying we shouldn't talk about hypotheticals. Why? If it helps people understand what is and what isn't racist, then what's the issue?

People like to think that racism is (for want of a better term) "black and white". Many times it is, but there are definitely many shades of grey as discussed in this thread to do with nationality that some consider "acceptable" but others don't that could do with clarifying and discussing.

It's an important topic. As long as we remember "if", then we'll understand better at any "when".

  • Like 5
Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite common for Australians to refer to English as 'Pommie Bas**ds' some of them even wear tee shirts with it emblazoned on.

This seems to attract little criticism. It all seems to depend on whether offence is taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Having been at a Russell group Uni with notoriously liberal policies between 2016 to late last year I will stand by my ascertation that this is massively overblown. Most students couldn't care less.

I know its a different issue but take the littering of parks in student areas whenever the sun is out. The narrative would have you believe that all students are vegan ecowarriors who love the planet more than themselves and want to join Extinction Rebellion - yet the reality is, and I really do dislike this term, the silent majority just don't care that much. Rather than active support for causes, I think there is far more student apathy towards most issues and therefore little in the way of opposition to the passionately loud, and disproportionately left wing, voices on campus. Gender Neutral toilets, couldn't care less.

I should qualify this by saying I was a member of the Uni Labour Society, helped with the launch parties of the feminist magazine a few of my mates were committee members on, studied History (a subject disproportionately left leaning in academia) and was friends with people who occasionally thought Nigel Farage was going a bit soft or stood for local council elections for the Tory party. I'm perfectly capable of being friends with most people, agreeing to disagree on certain issues. I'm of an age where plenty of girls put "no tories" in their tinder bios - yet I still think this is massively overblown.

I believe I agree with you 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, DimmestStar said:

It's quite common for Australians to refer to English as 'Pommie Bas**ds' some of them even wear tee shirts with it emblazoned on.

This seems to attract little criticism. It all seems to depend on whether offence is taken.

Swing and a miss. Polynesian is not a nationality but a racial identity. Better luck next time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, andyscoot said:

Swing and a miss. Polynesian is not a nationality but a racial identity. Better luck next time.

I don't believe it's a competition.

There is certainly a grey area when it comes to nationality. I think it's a fair discussion. Why is it deemed unacceptable to discriminate based on race and not because of nationality? Some will answer "it's not", to which I'd ask why is one deemed so much worse than the other?

Asking these questions is not me in any way attempting to make the alleged comment seem less offensive or more acceptable. Quite the opposite. Moreso make the others less acceptable. 

  • Like 2
Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a fair point and xenophobia is definitely a problem but I don't think it carries anywhere near the same weight calling someone a British so and so versus a black so and so for example.

It's simply less of an identity than race. Many people of different races are British. Line me up with a black and an Asian person; were all British, so the person insulting me isn't using my appearance to discriminate.  Nationality itself is fluid - I can become a citizen of another country if I meet the criteria. 

That's kind of why I see discrimination based on race to be worse than nationality.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

 

Being pejorative is very common... but its not racist. Be can be pejorative and offensive against say the French.  If a Castleford fan shouted out a pejorative insult against a French player involving slimy  amphibians that jump ... would he be racist?

Yes.

I have heard plenty racist comments aimed at French fans from the support from 1 particular Yorkshire team. They obviously didn't realise that plenty Toulouse fans can also understand English.

All the more reason why our on field product has to be 'cleaner than clean' in terms of sportsmanship, integrity etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/04/2021 at 08:02, barnyia said:

Ok thanks. Nationality is ok then? 

Polynesia is not a nationality or a country, but it i an ethnicity that has common strands of the culture in the  Hawaiian Islands, Masdsgascar, New Zealand and the rest of the geographical region known as Polynesia. It i also an identity that as received a lot of discrimination in sport until relatively recently.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just woken up on my day off to a load of reported posts in here.

Thanks everyone, just how I wanted to spend my day moderating this thread. 

Locked, until I've had time to look through it.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I've dealt with the reported stuff, but having read through this now, it's clear it has moved beyond the original incident into a discussion of wider issues that are more relevant to the political sub forum.

On that basis, I'm leaving it locked permanently in here.

This subject will no doubt resurface once the RFL reports on its investigation.

Until then, if you want to argue about the definition of racism. do it in the politics sub forum.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...