League news/Former Harriers 1

[ograzebrook]

Some one help me here. Suggesting someone might be happier (more sexually satisfied) if they had sex with a man (as all her female ancestors did successfully) means that the accuser has a phobia of non straight women?

And as Phil says - are we allowed to continually provoke people without repercussions until they use a combination of words back that align with whatever the latest phobic definition is?

Such a waste of time, talent and resources. Whoever reported this need to grow a pair!

[Sheffield Harrier]

A large organisation like the FA surely has to investigate when coaches etc act in a way that is discriminatory. This wasn't a criminal trial.
Unless we are all happy that anything goes? Do I tell my kids they can bring up someone's sexual orientation / race when having an argument with them?
I agree that the original language was also abusive.

[harry211]

It's not okay at all.

He's saying "If you weren't gay and slept with a bloke, you'd be better at your job."

It's unlikely he didn't know that Skinner was a lesbian. It's a comment about her sexuality. It's bang out of order.

He's rightly had the book thrown at him. Skinner's original line was abusive, but Bignot's repsonse was in a different league.

Frankly Owen, your response is alarming and completely misguided in itself.

[ograzebrook]

It's not okay at all.

He's saying "If you weren't gay and slept with a bloke, you'd be better at your job."

It's unlikely he didn't know that Skinner was a lesbian. It's a comment about her sexuality. It's bang out of order.

He's rightly had the book thrown at him. Skinner's original line was abusive, but Bignot's repsonse was in a different league.

Frankly Owen, your response is alarming and completely misguided in itself.

How can you prove he wasn't right?

[ograzebrook]

Its so ridiculous.

[GloucesterHarrier]

It's not okay at all.

He's saying "If you weren't gay and slept with a bloke, you'd be better at your job."

It's unlikely he didn't know that Skinner was a lesbian. It's a comment about her sexuality. It's bang out of order.

He's rightly had the book thrown at him. Skinner's original line was abusive, but Bignot's repsonse was in a different league.

Frankly Owen, your response is alarming and completely misguided in itself.

How can you prove he wasn't right?

Dear oh dear!

[ograzebrook]

I know it's a shocking thought experiment isn't it. Demonstrably true though.

Its a funny world we live in where equality is the gold standard and yet there is a hierarchy of offense written into law. Or as you said Harry, a league. Racial features and sexual preference is Champions league. A balding man such as myself has to accept that my friends will take the p*ss (until it's their turn). That would not even be national north in the offense league tables.

I remember being called a banzai tw@t when I played in 11 a side football because I had a hair band and long hair. Thought it was quite original.

Anyway I hear Ron Atkinson is available.

[Mark]

Some of you are so out of touch with reality it's really concerning. Really do feel sorry for you.

Phil or any other admin, you mind deleting my account please. I can't seem to find the option to do that myself otherwise I'd save you the trouble.

Peace!

[ograzebrook]

Lighten up mark - its a bit of fun

[harry211]

It's not a bit of fun, and I don't blame Mark. It's the sort of attitude that if I heard it in a pub I'd walk out and probably not go back in. I considered whether to go after the {expletive deleted} about AMS and some fans whataboutery excusing it. It's one thing having a difference of opinion, it's another thing excusing homophobia.

To respond Owen, what you're basically saying is that being a lesbian is 'wrong', and an acceptable comment to make is that she'd be better at her job if she was straight.

What planet do you live on where that's acceptable?

Of course there's a heiracy of abuse and of discrimination. You can't equate racism or homophobia with having a go at someone because they're bald. That's not equality. People aren't not given jobs, spat at in the street, beaten up, shunned by society, demeaned in their abilities...because they are bald. They are, and it happens, because they are black. Or because they are gay, or a lesbian.

[ograzebrook]

in seriousness, I do actually agree with you partially, I understand why the league exists. Having said that, the law already protects us against violence and has done for a long time and I personally have only ever witnessed equal treatment or positive discrimination of minority groups in the corporate world.

I'm not saying at all that anyone is wrong. Let alone sexual preference.

The statement from Bignot was a statement of conjecture. If it was threatening I would view it differently and perhaps thats how it was taken, we will never know the full context. It just seems like such a waste to have a third party rule on it and for someone to lose their job due to verbal sparring.

Under pressure or stress, tribal instincts tend to surface and the in group/out group behaviors increase. That's why football has always struggled with it, even though it's much improved from before my time.

Throwing insults in any context is a poor show really and suggests a level of insecurity on the part of the offender. A person should be able to let their sporting abilities do the talking, but in reality thats unrealistic.

[ograzebrook]

If you're still here Mark I can be a little provocative at times and have a mischievous persona, but I certainly didn't mean to upset anyone to the point where they left the site. I will take that on board as feedback and try to apply more nuance or a softer touch going forward.

[garthrockett]

I just find that whole scenario rather sad.
Football is one of those certain walks of life where raw emotion, frustration and anger can bubble up to the surface on a regular basis.
Things are said in the heat of the moment that are not meant, and in hindsight regrettable. (We've all done it....)
If the two parties mentioned had met up afterthe match over a cuppa/beer, and both apologised to each other for their comments, they could have got on with their lives and hopefully learnt a lesson and been a tad to the wiser going forward.

Unfortunately in these times we live in 'forgiveness' is in very short supply (why is another conversation entirely....).
Result; Bignot is out of a job and Skinner is forever labelled as a troublemaker.......which I suspect neither really deserve.

[ograzebrook]

Agreed Garth. There does seem to have been a cultural regression to a more childish suspended state. Perhaps it's because we live longer now and barely 100 years ago, the life expectancy was much lower and people had to mature much faster.

Diversity of opinions is a good thing that no one would surely disagree on. When people are confronted with something they don't like however, any idea of debate seems to be abandoned in place of a moral judgement (which was seen with the reaction to my comments). Having a higher morality = being better. Being better feels good. Personally, I think morals are for us to use internally for our own self reflection and improvement, not for using against each other. We are all here as members of a single community at the end of the day.

The fact is that these laws and rules are not equal at all and don't protect all groups, which in my view opens the debate to their existence at all. Either we are equal under the law, or we aren't. Offense is highly subjective and ultimately everyone carries insecurity and unresolved trauma so it would be much better if we looked at those throwing the insults in this light, rather than slapping labels on them and doing the thing you even alluded to Harry in respect of minorities - shunning them from society.

[Sheffield Harrier]

I just find that whole scenario rather sad.
Football is one of those certain walks of life where raw emotion, frustration and anger can bubble up to the surface on a regular basis.
Things are said in the heat of the moment that are not meant, and in hindsight regrettable. (We've all done it....)
If the two parties mentioned had met up afterthe match over a cuppa/beer, and both apologised to each other for their comments, they could have got on with their lives and hopefully learnt a lesson and been a tad to the wiser going forward.

Unfortunately in these times we live in 'forgiveness' is in very short supply (why is another conversation entirely....).
Result; Bignot is out of a job and Skinner is forever labelled as a troublemaker.......which I suspect neither really deserve.

I see this point.

But I suppose the point that some, who have been discriminated against, are making is that they have tried for many years to point out this stuff and got people to apologise and had a chat over a beer but its not making enough difference. Clearly, some groups have felt excluded from football and various positions within it over the years. If we just say anything goes if we call it "verbal sparring" then some will quickly feel unwelcome again.

I do agree with the comments about forgiveness being in short supply. People make mistakes. But when you are doing a job for a company / school / business / football team etc you need to be aware of what language you should use.

"The fact is that these laws and rules are not equal at all and don't protect all groups, which in my view opens the debate to their existence at all. Either we are equal under the law, or we aren't. Offense is highly subjective and ultimately everyone carries insecurity and unresolved trauma so it would be much better if we looked at those throwing the insults in this light, rather than slapping labels on them and doing the thing you even alluded to Harry in respect of minorities - shunning them from society."

I am not sure anyone here has advocated shunning Marcus Bignot from society. He's made a mistake and there is a sanction. He is free to repeat his comments in the public domain if he wishes. But when coaching in an FA fixture he is subject to their rules and standards so cannot just say what he likes there. I would agree that there is much inconsistency in the application of such standards.

Yes, not all "groups" are protected equally. I would argue that the groups that have historically suffered more prejudice and discrimination should be protected. I am not aware there is much evidence of bald men being less likely to get jobs etc.

I also would agree that we spend a disproportionate amount of time (and legal fees) dealing with words (yes, sometimes said in anger) than systematic prejudice and corruption in such organisations as FIFA/FA etc.

Peace out.
Peace out.