I was trying to make the point that holding any kind of debate in these circumstances is pointless without a reasonable measure of commonsense or reason.
]]>I’ve seen the video footage and do think where a person stands on the severity of it is a personal thing, I’m fine with that and will continue to disagree with those who think it’s not an issue. What I don’t like is Teecee’s attempt to be absolute and say it is categorically fine, everyone who disagrees is just one of the “professionally offended” etc.
At the moment I think the whole vacuum around the issue is unhelpful – it’s obviously caught the authorities unawares (which I guess in some ways is a good sign, as it’s so uncommon) but while they dither about what to do about it you just get the extremes on both sides trying to outshout each other.
]]>I certainly consider myself an English Brit as much as you would consider yourself a Welsh Brit. To deny me my nationality would be “_____” (please fill in the blanks)
]]>Look at what Marler said in the context provided by the video footage and this really is a case of making a mountain from a molehill.
]]>The fact you seem to think the only thing that is important is whether Samson Lee himself was offended just sums it up.
Teecee your prejudices are clear and bizarre. You’ve gone from thinking it’s ok to then accusing those of us who have an issue with it of being closet everything-phobes using nothing more than your tiny imagination. By all means put forward a decent case for there being no ban but your need to include abuse and imagined failings of others with it just proves that you don’t really have a point.
]]>The views of the recipient don’t matter, there are plenty of people ready to be offended on his behalf whether he wants it or not.
]]>There seems to be as many justifications based around historical context or some fanciful (if, admittedly, legally sound) idea regarding race, despite it being as nebulous a concept as fluency, as there are justifications of Marler’s behaviour.
Is it not simply true that, regardless of what he actually said, he was seeking only to offend and provoke, and thus was being a wanker? Surely the content is irrelevant. Calling me ‘Scottish boy’ isn’t inherently offensive. Neither is ‘black boy’. Neither is ‘Tory boy’. It’s the intent. Would people be upset if Marler had called Samson “fat boy”?
]]>People need to remember that offence is taken, not given. Samson Lee was arguably taken aback, but that’s about it. He has stated that he did not find it offensive and Marler offered his apology at the earliest opportunity of his own volition.
]]>1. “Gypsygate” – literally the LEAST offensive thing I’ve heard to be taken so seriously. I suspect a lot of people are commenting on this without having even seen the footage. On this clip – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/03/13/joe-marler-apologises-for-gypsy-boy-comment/ – it’s completely clear that he’s just trying to wind the bloke up a bit and, by the way, he also did a very effective job of getting Lee to stop manhandling his captain. Racist? Do me a favour.
2. Forearm smash by Marler, (footage also available on that Telegraph link above) – come on, it’s hardly a “smash” is it?? Jesus wept. However, it is foul play and an unnecessary cheapshot. Not happy about it, but this sort of sly dig happens any number of times during a match. This is basically a yellow card offence; as such, it should be dealt with the same as the Haskell neck roll.
3. Francis “contact with the eyes or eye area” – let’s remember this is the actual wording of the offence. Intent to gouge or poke fingers into the eye is not part of the law. By the letter of the law and precedent set by other similar sanctions, eight weeks seems a bit lenient to me. Having said that, my impression at the time was that the eye contact was accidental – looked to me like he was trying to execute a slapstick nose-tweak! – but, as we know, intent or otherwise is irrelevant.
]]>