RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:Right decision, several weeks too late. This is basically what the 6N should have done in the first place and made the whole mess go away.

Puja

Er ... This.

I don't understand how he got away with it in the first place.

I actually agree with Mikey Brown on this occasion, but retain my statutory right, upheld in British law, to change my point of view in an arbitrary fashion.

Banquo wrote:Make of this what you will....

https://crowdfunding.justgiving.com/lee ... ?utm_id=98

£134 raised
It may take a while

Digby wrote:The law's an ass sounds about right for most peoples response. But why would most people go from there to he should be sanctioned rather than the law should be ideally changed or at worst ignored? Do people normally think we'll that's a daft ruling but now it's there we'd best uphold it?

And anyway this isn't connected to UK law, Marler's hearing is based on Rugby's code of conduct, and that code of conduct is breached probably hundreds of times each week in the AP, each round of the 6N... Why bother going after one absurd comment which wasn't directed as racism and ignore all else?

250 posts in, and you're still asking the same questions, which have been answered many times. It's almost as if you don't want to see the answers and are just asking to prove a point; and that you made your decision in ignorance and are sticking with it however much information people throw at you.
Basically, UK law is relevant to things that happen within the UK
Intent is completely irrelevant when something is black and white. it IS racist, whether or not it was intended as such.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:What the hell is that decision? Kruis clearly should never have been cited, but Wilson was absolutely dead-to-rights. How on earth has Ashton got 10 weeks for something that was technically hands-in-eyes but with no actual danger to the player, while Wilson gets away scot-free with an actual gouge?!

Kruis shouldn't have been cited? how do you work that one out? an allegation of biting - made to the ref at the time should just be roundly ignored?
Wilson of course should be stood down for the rest of the season, and well into pre-season.

Roundly ignored, no, but a 2 minute look at the video by the citing commissioner would see that it wasn't worth pushing through to a citing. Wilson is clawing at the face of someone whose arms are bound into the maul - if one of his fingers went into Kruis's mouth, he really shouldn't be surprised by a self-defensive closing of the mouth.

Puja

I agree with those who can't comprehend how travellers have come to be classed as a race. Having said that, the law is the law and I think the ban is correct.

I'm now looking forward to every player who says anything to breach World Rugby's laws on 'banter', what ever they may be, to now be brought before a disciplinary panel. I assume this will happen as abuse, racism etc etc isn't only that when broadcast to millions.

Possibly shouldn't attempt a spot of levity....but is saracen a race?

Banquo wrote:Possibly shouldn't attempt a spot of levity....but is saracen a race?

Nope, a religion.Therefore we need to be careful what we say about young Faz etc! otherwise it could be a £20000 for Hammy!

plainoldtoad wrote:

Puja wrote:Right decision, several weeks too late. This is basically what the 6N should have done in the first place and made the whole mess go away.

Puja

Er ... This.

I don't understand how he got away with it in the first place.

Having seen some of the attitudes on here, i sadly can.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Having seen some of the attitudes on here, i sadly can.

What have attitudes on here got to do with him not being banned initially?

oldbackrow wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Having seen some of the attitudes on here, i sadly can.

What have attitudes on here got to do with him not being banned initially?

I'm not sure either. I'm fairly certain that nobody on here has denied Marler should be charged with bringing the game in to disrepute. There are a few, including me, who think that travellers shouldn't be classed as a race and are being told they should should blindly follow the law without any disagreement. Unlike, say, a barrister going on strike......

I just think it a shame that The Hask has been kept off the back pages due to one innocuous incident. I just hope the upcoming release of his first album of Brand Mix doesn't suffer a similar fate due to the upcoming nuptials of Swifty

p/d wrote:I just think it a shame that The Hask has been kept off the back pages due to one innocuous incident. I just hope the upcoming release of his first album of Brand Mix doesn't suffer a similar fate due to the upcoming nuptials of Swifty

I shall queue overnight outside my local Our Price to get this album at 9am. This is the first time I will have queued overnight since Daniel O Donnell tickets went on sale at the Bristol Hippodrome.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:The law's an ass sounds about right for most peoples response. But why would most people go from there to he should be sanctioned rather than the law should be ideally changed or at worst ignored? Do people normally think we'll that's a daft ruling but now it's there we'd best uphold it?

And anyway this isn't connected to UK law, Marler's hearing is based on Rugby's code of conduct, and that code of conduct is breached probably hundreds of times each week in the AP, each round of the 6N... Why bother going after one absurd comment which wasn't directed as racism and ignore all else?

250 posts in, and you're still asking the same questions, which have been answered many times. It's almost as if you don't want to see the answers and are just asking to prove a point; and that you made your decision in ignorance and are sticking with it however much information people throw at you.
Basically, UK law is relevant to things that happen within the UK
Intent is completely irrelevant when something is black and white. it IS racist, whether or not it was intended as such.

I checked whether UK law was relevant with someone who sits on rugby disciplinary panels, his view was that UK law was not relevant unless specifically and unusually cited with a specific charge/appeal, and that WR tend to prefer a consistent use of their model and not see local unions apply local law. So it might have been used in this case, but as per the lucky barrister who endures rugby hearings it's not likely.

And you can come back to me in 250 days or 250 weeks never mind 250 posts and I'll still be asking the same questions about this. But if you want a new angle on it then if use word of the gypsy strikes racist notes then what's acceptable about 'English Cunt' as leaving to one side it's directing abuse on the basis of national origin (an equal charge under rugby's code of conduct) it's also misogynistic. Okay the misogyny is perhaps as ill-informed and unintended as the gypsy racist comment, but even give then language with it's significant bias toward pejorative words about woman over me it is a vulgar term about women and World Rugby are accepting it as okay, and you've clearly set out above that intent isn't relevant in this. Who'd have thought the white men running the sport in Ireland are more worried about being offensive to a group of Irish Persons than straight up misogyny

I can accept going after Marler for his coments, it I put to one side that it should never be needed for this ridiculous case, but not if they pick out only one example and leave the majority untouched.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

plainoldtoad wrote:

Puja wrote:Right decision, several weeks too late. This is basically what the 6N should have done in the first place and made the whole mess go away.

Puja

Er ... This.

I don't understand how he got away with it in the first place.

Having seen some of the attitudes on here, i sadly can.

One might almost think people don't like gypsies

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

plainoldtoad wrote: Er ... This.

I don't understand how he got away with it in the first place.

Having seen some of the attitudes on here, i sadly can.

One might almost think people don't like gypsies

Oh I don't know, I wouldn't buy my lucky heather,clothes pegs or have my drive tarmacced byanyone else!

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

plainoldtoad wrote: Er ... This.

I don't understand how he got away with it in the first place.

Having seen some of the attitudes on here, i sadly can.

One might almost think people don't like gypsies

why, they are always a source of cheap scrap metal, lead from church roof's and the like

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:The law's an ass sounds about right for most peoples response. But why would most people go from there to he should be sanctioned rather than the law should be ideally changed or at worst ignored? Do people normally think we'll that's a daft ruling but now it's there we'd best uphold it?

And anyway this isn't connected to UK law, Marler's hearing is based on Rugby's code of conduct, and that code of conduct is breached probably hundreds of times each week in the AP, each round of the 6N... Why bother going after one absurd comment which wasn't directed as racism and ignore all else?

250 posts in, and you're still asking the same questions, which have been answered many times. It's almost as if you don't want to see the answers and are just asking to prove a point; and that you made your decision in ignorance and are sticking with it however much information people throw at you.
Basically, UK law is relevant to things that happen within the UK
Intent is completely irrelevant when something is black and white. it IS racist, whether or not it was intended as such.

I checked whether UK law was relevant with someone who sits on rugby disciplinary panels, his view was that UK law was not relevant unless specifically and unusually cited with a specific charge/appeal, and that WR tend to prefer a consistent use of their model and not see local unions apply local law. So it might have been used in this case, but as per the lucky barrister who endures rugby hearings it's not likely.

And you can come back to me in 250 days or 250 weeks never mind 250 posts and I'll still be asking the same questions about this. But if you want a new angle on it then if use word of the gypsy strikes racist notes then what's acceptable about 'English Cunt' as leaving to one side it's directing abuse on the basis of national origin (an equal charge under rugby's code of conduct) it's also misogynistic. Okay the misogyny is perhaps as ill-informed and unintended as the gypsy racist comment, but even give then language with it's significant bias toward pejorative words about woman over me it is a vulgar term about women and World Rugby are accepting it as okay, and you've clearly set out above that intent isn't relevant in this. Who'd have thought the white men running the sport in Ireland are more worried about being offensive to a group of Irish Persons than straight up misogyny

I can accept going after Marler for his coments, it I put to one side that it should never be needed for this ridiculous case, but not if they pick out only one example and leave the majority untouched.

And thus it's officially confirmed you can't call someone a gypsy, but you can call someone a stupid cunt, twice